It's an Emergency
The Waiting Game by Paul Krugman
"I'm here for my annual checkup," he replied. "Everyone knows you can get all the care you need at the emergency room, the president said it so it must be true."
"I'm sorry, the president misspoke," she said. "
You mean lied " he said.
"You could say that" she said.
"How about a hip replacement, can I schedule that today?" he said.
"Listen sir, if you don't leave I'll have to call security, we have emergencies to take care of here."
When will George ever stop lying to us?
Being without health insurance is no big deal. Just ask President Bush. “I mean, people have access to health care in America,” he said last week. “After all, you just go to an emergency room.”"What is your emergency?" she said.
"I'm here for my annual checkup," he replied. "Everyone knows you can get all the care you need at the emergency room, the president said it so it must be true."
"I'm sorry, the president misspoke," she said. "
You mean lied " he said.
"You could say that" she said.
"How about a hip replacement, can I schedule that today?" he said.
"Listen sir, if you don't leave I'll have to call security, we have emergencies to take care of here."
When will George ever stop lying to us?
A recent article in Business Week put it bluntly: “In reality, both data and anecdotes show that the American people are already waiting as long or longer than patients living with universal health-care systems.”Oh my this is good for a laugh or two.
A cross-national survey conducted by the Commonwealth Fund found that America ranks near the bottom among advanced countries in terms of how hard it is to get medical attention on short notice (although Canada was slightly worse), and that America is the worst place in the advanced world if you need care after hours or on a weekend.
We look better when it comes to seeing a specialist or receiving elective surgery. But Germany outperforms us even on those measures — and I suspect that France, which wasn’t included in the study, matches Germany’s performance.
it’s true that Americans get hip replacements faster than Canadians. But there’s a funny thing about that example, which is used constantly as an argument for the superiority of private health insurance over a government-run system: the large majority of hip replacements in the United States are paid for by, um, Medicare. That’s right: the hip-replacement gap is actually a comparison of two government health insurance systems. American Medicare has shorter waits than Canadian Medicare (yes, that’s what they call their system) because it has more lavish funding — end of story. The alleged virtues of private insurance have nothing to do with it.Okay Paul give us the bottom line:
The bottom line is that the opponents of universal health care appear to have run out of honest arguments. All they have left are fantasies: horror fiction about health care in other countries, and fairy tales about health care here in America.Amen!
Comments
I loved te hip replacement example - perfect. BTW, for those who don't have a NYT subscription:
http://welcome-to-pottersville.blogspot.com/2007/07/paul-krugman-waiting-game.html
(Love the name of the blog too!)
The bottom line is that the opponents of universal health care appear to have run out of honest arguments.
And as we saw last week with CNN vs. Michael Moore, the mainstream press will also use disingenuous and dishonest arguments to discredit proponents of universal health care.
You wonder how much CNN, FOX News, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, et al. get in ad revenues and/or payoffs from the AMA and the big pharm and medical insurance industries. And I wonder how much these special interest groups shell out to Congressional candidates to squash any legislation for universal health coverage.
Let them eat cake!
My two favorite arguments against universal healthcare that've shown themselves in the past few weeks are the following:
1) "Why doesn't the government give us universal car insurance too?" - found on the freerepublic message board, suggesting that they value humanity as much as an automobile.
2) The suggestion that completely liberalizing the healthcare market would be extremely beneficial for business. Yes, nobody is doubting that it'd be great for business, we just don't think so low of ourselves to want to turn our health into a commodity.
As much as I do support socialized healthcare, it is only because we have the private pharmaceutical industry that they're able to innovate. Without profits, the pharmaceutical corporations wouldn't be able to continue research, and save more lives. Right?
Right?
Right.
Wrong. So we can't abandon the sinking ship that is our health care system because Tim and Syngas are afraid of losing their over-priced boner pills? Go think of something else guys, we'll wait here.
Of course, it is a good thing we have a corporate welfare state to shelter those pharmaceutical corporations from the ravages of price competition and we can all thank the the heroes of the Bush administration for keeping that nasty auditor, Richard Foster, from getting lawmakers overly concerned about costs too.
All from countries with universal health care and all with revenue in excess of $3 billion, and/or R&D expenditure in excess of $500 million, which is comparable to any U.S. pharmaceutical company and better in many cases.
leftbanker, wyoung:
Just so you know, we're playing games here. Someone (my guess was Syngas) posted the pharmaceutical company comment using my name. Based on my guess, I posted the facetious Syngas "replies".
BTW - you can distinguish the messages from genuine messages by looking for the typekey icon.
Thanks for clearing that up Tim.
I would rather we didn't have to go down the road of fake postings. I understand you're reaction to the original fake poster and note that you owned it without hesitation.
To the original fake poster, that is an utter slimeball tactic. Does Tim scare you that much?
What a relief! I'm so accustomed to reading intelligent and well thought out responses from Tim. I was wondering why he suddenly sounded so dense on this particular topic.
Here's a good read on pharmaceuticals.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17244
Oh…well cut that shit out!
Oh…well whoever started it, cut that shit out. (with logo)
It was not Syngas as far as I can tell it is the only comment from that ip address.
A new troll, great. :)
When will George ever stop lying to us?
That would be January 20, 2009 - at the soonest scheduled date.
Okay, I'm sorry. I've never posted a comment on here before, and I apologize for using my own name and my own email. It was not on purpose, obviously. You couldn't take the time to drag your cursor over the name to check to make sure? Huh.
The system is garbage; that's what I'm trying to say. I was simply asking if it would be wise to factor the drug companies out of the prospect of socialized medicine. Clearly, it's probably not. Everything needs an overhaul. I think everyone, including the pharmaceutical industry, realizes that.
Sorry again for the mix-up, I guess. And the "boner pills" are priced so highly because of excess government control (FDA regulation, etc.) in addition to trying to make a profit after decades of medical research. Am I right on that?
And just so we're clear, I'm the one who posted as Tim higher up on the page. I did not know there was another one.
Maybe there's just some other person named Tim.
I spent 9 hours in emergency the other day just to have my wrist checked for a fracture. Why must patients with real issues of the body be help up by people like me? The emergency room has become the general outlet for medical aid, and this should not be.
There is something wrong with this.
The "let them use emergency rooms for routine visits" concept is ruining emergency medicine...at least in FL and MA. When I was a kid, I broke the shit out of my thumb with a snow blower -- literally shattered the bone. It was insanely painful, and I was home alone when it happened, but I didn't call an ambulance because I knew my parents couldn't afford that. I got a ride from my uncle (and passed out cold on the floor from the shock while I was waiting for him), but because we went in through the front doors, I had to "get in line" behind everyone who got there before me, including the dozen moms taking their kids to the ER because they have an ear ache and don't have health insurance. I sat in the ER, bleeding, in severe pain, without ice (they ran out) for 8 hours.
My thumb was so badly mangled that when they finally saw me, they didn't know what to do with it. They wouldn't do anything without the specialist, but because they had made me wait so long, he had gone home for the day!
I ended up having to go in the next morning for surgery, and although they were supposed to make an appointment for me, there was no room in the operating room, so the specialist operated on my thumb in his office, without general anesthesia.
From what I hear, the ERs in FL are no better. I haven't found out first hand because I've avoided them at all costs. Even when I got in a motorcycle accident, I went to a walk in clinic instead (which had its own set of problems, this time insurance related).
I would like to see how emergency medical care compares in other countries. My American friend who now lives in Ireland said the ERs there are much better.
Jay: What a horror story. Unfortunately, at this point its one of many I've heard over the years, all from Americans.
When I first heard Americans speaking favorably of our (Canadian) health care system, I was like "wow, they have no idea, our health system is pretty cruddy."
Then I started to hear what it was really like "down there". And while our system is no cakewalk, I was shocked to realise that relative to the American system, the services up here are nice. The Canadian system has its problems, but the situation in the USA is downright barbaric.
I was hospitalized after a serious car accident, and while there were things about my treatment worth complaining about, at least I was given full and immediate attention, just like every other Canadian would be.
"Without profits, the pharmaceutical corporations wouldn't be able to continue research, and save more lives. Right?"
Then there is the Institute Pasteur in France, a country of universal health care.
http://www.pasteur.fr/english.html
They only do small things like discover HIV.
Tim C., if you check out p-ast posts for the last week or so, you will understand how the misidentification happened. Using typekey is always a good idea.
OK, you did not use a slimeball tactic. I take it back most sincerely. You are an official victim of misperception and NOT playing the part of a troll, Tim C.
An object lesson for myself and all, regarding the why objective proff is ALWAYS better than unsupported belief.
And why I should never try typing when drinking. :)
wyoung,
Without realizing it, you've made Tim C's point and even my imposter's point. Those European drug companies make the majority of their money from US citizens - not their fellow countrymen.
One example:
Glaxo Profit Sources
I would link you to more but I hate html (it took me 5 minutes just to type that last one out).
If you think Glaxo is just an anomoly, let me know and either me or my imposter will point you to the relevant page.
Do you think Boeing only sells airplanes to Americans? Do you think Toyota only sells cars to the Japanese? Do think Hyundai only sells ships to South Koreans?
we do NOT call it medicare in canada. it's either referred to by the older provincial monikors, like OHIP or BCH, or it's simply called "healthcare". i've never heard a canadian in my life call it "medicare"
Syngas--
Let me get this straight: Your argument against universal health coverage in the USA is that it would cut into big pharm's profitability?
I see. Hmm. Interesting.
No Mat,
My argument is and was that big pharm's profitability is the driving force behind their development of newer and (sometimes) better treatments.
The rest of the world is benefiting very nicely (in the form of better drugs) from the innovations made by international drug companies who are rewarded handsomely by the US consumer. When the US adopts price controls on drugs, big pharma will not take the risks associated with innovation because they know there will be very little reward and a high probability of loss.
It's kind of like college. If you knew before hand that you're earning capacity would be the same whether or not you went to college, would you invest tens of thousands of dollars and 4+ years of your life learning new skills? Some might but most would not.
If you want to be mad at somebody, be mad at Europe and Canada for mooching off the US.
I posted a link above to a very interesting article in the New York Review of Books. Apparently Syngas didn't read it.
It was written by Marcia Angell "a Senior Lecturer in Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School. A physician, she is a former Editor in Chief of The New England Journal of Medicine. Her latest book is The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It. (June 2006)"
Here's a few excerpts, but not as informative as readinghttp://www.nybooks.com/articles/17244 the entire article:
just paste the url it should create a link but limit it to three or your comment will get junked.
Thanks Jo Ann,
I use a me-too drug manufactured by Glaxo called Advair. The components of Advair are not new drugs - I have used both of them with moderate success for many years however by combining the two in an inhalable powder instead of two liquid aerosol inhalers has made a tremendous difference. The result is I never have to use a rescue inhaler (albuterol) anymore and asthma does not limit my ability to live a normal life. I'm thankful for that me-too drug.
As for only having 17 new drugs approved by the FDA in one year, you have made my point in that billions of dollars probably went into research and development of the other 61 drugs that were not approved. If there were not the potential of a high reward for success, nobody would even try!
I agree there is considerable work done by universities and other public institutions on finding new compounds and even finding new uses for old ones. Taking something from the drawing board to the marketplace is something universities and government agencies cannot do (not even in France!).
Thanks Norm,
I usually do just paste it but for the longer ones, it usually won't work. Here is the same link pasted.
http://www.gsk.com/financial/reports/ar/report/descripofbus/marketdistrib/marketdis.html
I should probably learn some html anyway.
BTW - Thanks for clearing up the attempted identity theft earlier. I'm grateful ;-}
"My argument is and was that big pharm's profitability is the driving force behind their development of newer and (sometimes) better treatments. "
Ok, you own a pharm. company, who wants to make money for yourself. How do you make $7,000,000,000 profit off of the american public in one year.
A) Develop a couple cutting edge drugs through years and years of clinical trials, on a drug that could possibly work in about 10-15 years, and hope that nobody gets the drug approved before you, or
B) Add an active ingredient to your 100 existing drug patents to keep the patent from lapsing, and get it passed by the FDA this year, and keeping generics from being made.
Hmmm, if you can't answer this question, go back to school. the 7 out of 79 statistic is pretty interesting too.
Using that logic Syngas we shouldn't give any federal funding to Pharm. companies for development of new drugs right? Link
As you just pointed out in your post above Pharm. companies rarely develop new drugs most are old ones with a slight change.
Your assertion that changing the health care system will negatively impact R&D by biotech companies is unfounded.
The for-profit model isn't such a great one for coming up with new drugs. I lived with a family for 3 months who had two children with junior rheumatoid arthritis, a pretty nasty disease which attacks people differently. In the boy, it mostly attacked the cartilage in his knees and neck and he had to use crutches to walk. In the girl, it attacked her eyes (she's now legally blind).
They became involved in a study of a new drug for several years, which seemed to stop the arthritis in its tracks while having no side effects. They used it for several years and it helped significantly. Unfortunately the drug company studying this drug was a small one, and they went bankrupt before being FDA approved, so the trials stopped. But they still own the rights to the drug, and since Junior Rheumatoid Arthritis is rare, there aren't any other drug companies interested in buying it.
The other drugs available for treating the disease have side effects ranging from turning teeth permanently black to bringing on early onset of puberty, all while not stopping the arthritis as effectively. When the trials ended, the boy was old enough to have stopped the arthritis, but the girl still had it. She tried the other drugs but had to stop because they were causing more harm than good (including stopping her growth by bringing on puberty, at a time when she was TINY).
You don't have to buy the newer brand named drugs Willey. If you think the old generics will do as good of a job, you should use them! I usually ask for the generic at the pharmacy and when I'm at the doctor's office, I ask if there is a generic that is as effective or nearly so. If you don't do the same, go back to common sense camp!
Jay,
Sorry about your friends.
Q: Why hasn't a university started manufacturing these much needed drugs? Are they just heartless? Don't they care about your friends?
A: Universities don't make drugs.
When you say "make" do you mean research and discover or mass produce?
If you mean mass produce you're correct, if you mean research you're not.
Syngas: IIRC, pharm. companies have a certain amount of time after creating a drug to patent it and sell it exclusively in the US. After all, they spent all that money developing the drug, they should see some profits for all their work. However, if they make changes to the patent before it expires they continue to hold the patent. It would be patent infringment if another company made a "generic" in the US.
After so many years, the companies see that it is no longer pertinent to hold an exclusive patent, and let it lapse, allowing for generics.
That's the process that I was talking about, this has nothing to do with the kind of drugs i use.
None of this babbling has anything to do with universal health coverage.
Big pharm will survive and I am sure they will continue R&D regardless of how health coverage is financed in America.
All I am saying is that using big pharm's loss of profitability as an argument against universal health coverage is baloney.
When the US adopts price controls on drugs, big pharma will not take the risks associated with innovation because they know there will be very little reward and a high probability of loss.
Tough titty. Having 50 million citizens without access to health care trumps big pharm's profit schedules by a country mile.
And I am sure you're aware of providing government subsidies as a way of balancing this loss so that R&D will not be affected.
Semantic check: I mean Big Pharma.
Excuse my stupidity.
Oh, and one more thing, Syngas: How much more profitability will USA divisions of pharmaceutical companies gain when they no longer have to provide health coverage for their tens of thousands of US employees? After all, European divisions of the same companies don't have to already.
In fact, Syngas, let's do the math of taking employee health coverage off the books of US divisions of Big Pharma companies.
We'll use this as our averge cost per employee:
So the cost per employee for health coverage is $7,523.
Let's assume a Big Pharma's US division has 10,000 employees. Take away having to pay their health coverage yields a tidy gain of $75,230,000.
Sweet.
I haven't seen such a nice example of argumentum verbosium since I last talked to Kes. He would have used more blue boxes though. What ever happened to him anyway?
Syngas, Sorry for implicating you in the nonexistent "fake" post.
The reason I thought it was you is I thought Tim C. was making the same point I've seen you make before (and you made here again). Since I had acknowledged the validity of your point before, I figured you were giving me the needle... so anyway, my apologies.
BTW, though you have a valid point, I doubt that pharmaceutical companies are going to suffer much from nor using the US market to pay their development costs. Perhaps they will just have to more evenly distribute prices across more of the developed world. (Furthermore, these guys have a huge lobby which managed to write Bush's ridiculous drug plan up – I doubt their existence is on the line!)
I forgive you.
En Garde!
"Perhaps they will just have to more evenly distribute prices across more of the developed world."
You mean the French might have to pay more for their health care as a result of the US copying them? DON'T TELL JO ANN!!! SHE MIGHT JUST CHANGE HER MIND!!
Re: Big Pharma lobby - I'm not so sure they're gonna have much influence over President Clinton. She's already pretty deep in Soro's pockets and she has been in politics long enought to know you dance with the one that brung ya.
One more blue box, Syngas.
That, I believe, is the theme of this thread.
Interesting you use the term argumentum verbosium, which implies arguing with excessive bullshit, which I believe you've been doing this entire thread.
The Syngas "honest" argument:
My argument is and was that big pharm's profitability is the driving force behind their development of newer and (sometimes) better treatments.
Whether this has any relevance or not in discussing how profitability in the pharmaceutical industry affects drug development, specifically in this thread about Krugman's essay and universal health coverage, I ask you the following questions:
1) What does your "argument" have to do with Krugman's article that Norm cited?
2) What does your "argument" have to do with universal health coverage in America?
Really, dude, speaking of argumentum verbosium and all.
1) I didn't take this thread off-topic. Tim C. and Tim (the real slim-shady) did though prescription medication is a part of health care IMHO.
2) Can you name one country with 'universal health care' that hasn't instituted price controls on medications? Are you really dumb enough to believe that's not part of President Clinton's prescription for America?
1) I didn't take this thread off-topic. Tim C. and Tim (the real slim-shady) did...
But you sure kept it off-topic, didn't you? That makes you even more repugnant and dishonest.
2) Can you name one country with 'universal health care' that hasn't instituted price controls on medications?
I see. So it is not better to protect citizens from being gouged by the sleazy pharmaceutical industry than it is to protect the profits of these companies? Wow, it's nice to know whose side you are on, Syngas. You're not exactly a man of the people, eh? Are you by chance the CEO of Eli Lilly? How much big pharma stock in your portfolio do you have that you'd screw the people with such a specious defense of the pharmaceutical industry?
Are you really dumb enough to believe that's not part of President Clinton's prescription for America?
Funny, you are dumb enough to be a tool for corportions who screw your fellow citizens with impunity, so I will not dignify such a libelous implication on your part with an answer to this ridiculously loaded question.
A simple qquestion for you is this:
Are you for or against universal health care in America? I am guessing the answer is no. Just say it for once and stop bullshitting us with your--what did you call it?--argumentum verbosium?
Calm down Mat. You're going to get your universal health care. No sense getting your panties in a bunch about it.
Good night all.
Syngas,
I don't believe I ever said anything about Universities manufacturing drugs.
Post a comment