Conquer Club

Only 5 more months of enduring Nancy Pelosi, then we can de-fund that monstrosity.

Snorri1234 wrote:

PopeBenXVI wrote:When the Gov takes over all health care and runs all the private companies out of business then we can say goodbye to many advances in procedures.

Word.


Have you actually read this thread?

Yes, Canada's government run health care system is broke and is looking for ways to cut costs. Typically when costs need to be slashed the non essentials are cut first which would not be treatment first but money put into new research. Player, you did not read what I wrote, I never said Gov did not contribute to research but when they are in a pinch (and they clearly will be) they will certainly not spend much on it.

Don't worry Player, they will cut needed heart surgery and breast cancer chemo first before they cut your precious abortion funding to help the poor people who can't afford to kill their children. Unless they don't have enough doctors for that either from the dropping applicants trend that apparently is already occurring.

Question for Canadians

How powerful are the healthcare agencies there?

PLAYER57832 wrote:

PopeBenXVI wrote:When the Gov takes over all health care and runs all the private companies out of business then we can say goodbye to many advances in procedures. The competition we have between companies fuels a lot of innovation right now. No real reason for Governments to put all that money into new research when you can't go anywhere else.

Especially since the government funds most research right NOW.

What happens when the gov't goes broke?

and with the cost of just the application for a new pharm patent starting at 500 million, I would open the case the the gov't actually stands in the way of innovation...

Phatscotty wrote:and with the cost of just the application for a new pharm patent starting at 500 million, I would open the case the the gov't actually stands in the way of innovation...

Yeah, a rigorous system of Intellectual Property protection is precisely what is holding back medical innovation in the US...

PopeBenXVI wrote:Don't worry Player, they will cut needed heart surgery and breast cancer chemo first before they cut your precious abortion funding to help the poor people who can't afford to kill their children.

Why would you believe that abortion funding is "precious" to PLAYER? You don't seem to understand her very well.

Phatscotty wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

PopeBenXVI wrote:When the Gov takes over all health care and runs all the private companies out of business then we can say goodbye to many advances in procedures. The competition we have between companies fuels a lot of innovation right now. No real reason for Governments to put all that money into new research when you can't go anywhere else.

Especially since the government funds most research right NOW.

What happens when the gov't goes broke?

and with the cost of just the application for a new pharm patent starting at 500 million, I would open the case the the gov't actually stands in the way of innovation...

Let's see: Right now, the government does medical research and GIVES the patents away to companies, who then are allowed to make a profit on them. We cut some of the profits those companies can take and suddenly, the government will have less money, less incentive to do research?

Explain...

I guess the administration couldn't bother being asked on the record questions about whether the Medicare head supported the British Health Care system that rations care. If this system is "uniquely American", why is a strong supporter of the British system now in a prominent role in our system?

Woodruff wrote:

PopeBenXVI wrote:Don't worry Player, they will cut needed heart surgery and breast cancer chemo first before they cut your precious abortion funding to help the poor people who can't afford to kill their children.

Why would you believe that abortion funding is "precious" to PLAYER? You don't seem to understand her very well.

To be fair, the rule is "Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!"

/citizen kang'd

Night Strike wrote:I guess the administration couldn't bother being asked on the record questions about whether the Medicare head supported the British Health Care system that rations care. If this system is "uniquely American", why is a strong supporter of the British system now in a prominent role in our system?

Gosh, a non sequitur both hilariously dumb and depressingly stupid... a powerful combination.

(1) The UK System does not 'ration care' in any sense of the word that does not involve re-defining half of the OED.

(2) Just because somebody is a 'supporter' of a system, does not mean that they think it is an ideal system which ought to be perfectly replicated elsewhere

(3) Therefore, somebody who 'supports' the UK System is as well suited as anybody else to play a prominent role in a 'uniquely American' one.

(4) Next time, try thinking before you type

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

PopeBenXVI wrote:When the Gov takes over all health care and runs all the private companies out of business then we can say goodbye to many advances in procedures. The competition we have between companies fuels a lot of innovation right now. No real reason for Governments to put all that money into new research when you can't go anywhere else.

Especially since the government funds most research right NOW.

What happens when the gov't goes broke?

and with the cost of just the application for a new pharm patent starting at 500 million, I would open the case the the gov't actually stands in the way of innovation...

Let's see: Right now, the government does medical research and GIVES the patents away to companies, who then are allowed to make a profit on them. We cut some of the profits those companies can take and suddenly, the government will have less money, less incentive to do research?

Explain...

I researched this and it turns out that government only provides 1/3 of medical research funding, the rest being from the private sector. And that's more than most other areas.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Let's see: Right now, the government does medical research and GIVES the patents away to companies, who then are allowed to make a profit on them. We cut some of the profits those companies can take and suddenly, the government will have less money, less incentive to do research?

Explain...

Player, what were you smokin' when you "heard" this?

I would like to get me some of that!

john9blue wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

PopeBenXVI wrote:When the Gov takes over all health care and runs all the private companies out of business then we can say goodbye to many advances in procedures. The competition we have between companies fuels a lot of innovation right now. No real reason for Governments to put all that money into new research when you can't go anywhere else.

Especially since the government funds most research right NOW.

What happens when the gov't goes broke?

and with the cost of just the application for a new pharm patent starting at 500 million, I would open the case the the gov't actually stands in the way of innovation...

Let's see: Right now, the government does medical research and GIVES the patents away to companies, who then are allowed to make a profit on them. We cut some of the profits those companies can take and suddenly, the government will have less money, less incentive to do research?

Explain...

I researched this and it turns out that government only provides 1/3 of medical research funding, the rest being from the private sector. And that's more than most other areas.

"Doing medical research" and "funding all medical research" are not the same thing. It is very true that government funding is responsible for many breakthroughs in medical research, but Big Pharma makes a whole lot of money using the information from that 1/3 of the research funding the gov provides.

john9blue wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

PopeBenXVI wrote:When the Gov takes over all health care and runs all the private companies out of business then we can say goodbye to many advances in procedures. The competition we have between companies fuels a lot of innovation right now. No real reason for Governments to put all that money into new research when you can't go anywhere else.

Especially since the government funds most research right NOW.

What happens when the gov't goes broke?

and with the cost of just the application for a new pharm patent starting at 500 million, I would open the case the the gov't actually stands in the way of innovation...

Let's see: Right now, the government does medical research and GIVES the patents away to companies, who then are allowed to make a profit on them. We cut some of the profits those companies can take and suddenly, the government will have less money, less incentive to do research?

Explain...

I researched this and it turns out that government only provides 1/3 of medical research funding, the rest being from the private sector. And that's more than most other areas.

1/3 in what way? Money, data, patents? Also, who is the source of that? And, for how long?

A lot of what the government does is baseline, indirect type research that doesn't necessarily result in immediate and direct financial benefit, but which is fundamental to allowing other entities to do the financial research (investigating the development of aspirin, not putting it into a pill and sugar-coating it).

jimboston wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Let's see: Right now, the government does medical research and GIVES the patents away to companies, who then are allowed to make a profit on them. We cut some of the profits those companies can take and suddenly, the government will have less money, less incentive to do research?

Explain...

Player, what were you smokin' when you "heard" this?

I would like to get me some of that!

My source is a speech by Ralph Nadar. Unfortunately, obtaining a copy cost $20.

PopeBenXVI wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

PopeBenXVI wrote:When the Gov takes over all health care and runs all the private companies out of business then we can say goodbye to many advances in procedures.

Word.


Have you actually read this thread?

Yes, Canada's government run health care system is broke and is looking for ways to cut costs. Typically when costs need to be slashed the non essentials are cut first which would not be treatment first but money put into new research. Player, you did not read what I wrote, I never said Gov did not contribute to research but when they are in a pinch (and they clearly will be) they will certainly not spend much on it.

Don't worry Player, they will cut needed heart surgery and breast cancer chemo first before they cut your precious abortion funding to help the poor people who can't afford to kill their children. Unless they don't have enough doctors for that either from the dropping applicants trend that apparently is already occurring.

If you believe I am in favor of abortion, you are more than a class A idiot. That you continue to bring this up when I have made plain I do NOT think that makes you a class A jerk.

spurgistan wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

PopeBenXVI wrote:Don't worry Player, they will cut needed heart surgery and breast cancer chemo first before they cut your precious abortion funding to help the poor people who can't afford to kill their children.

Why would you believe that abortion funding is "precious" to PLAYER? You don't seem to understand her very well.

To be fair, the rule is "Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!"

/citizen kang'd

PopebenXVI brought this up specifically because he knows I do not think that way.

PopebenXVI and some others choose to believe the Roman Catholic church stance that woman should risk her life, future reproductive ability or give birth to a child who is doomed to constant pain and not seek surgary (no matter the health reasons) for removal of miscarriages. I disagree. I also feel that the time to prevent an abortion is well before a women even gets pregnant. In the case of teens and some older individuals (men and women), before having sex. (grown women who accept consequences are generally not the ones having voluntary abortions). We live in a world where values differ and have as a fundamental value that we don't use laws to enforce our personnal beliefs.

As for the flag... I have no idea where that comment even falls.

As for the flag... I have no idea where that comment even falls.

It's a Simpsons quote, intended to be humorous.

King Doctor wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:and with the cost of just the application for a new pharm patent starting at 500 million, I would open the case the the gov't actually stands in the way of innovation...

Yeah, a rigorous system of Intellectual Property protection is precisely what is holding back medical innovation in the US...

enforced by the FDA...

Phatscotty wrote:enforced by the FDA...

Mmmm, pointless post is pointless.

King Doctor wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:enforced by the FDA...

Mmmm, pointless post is pointless.

Well, that is what happens when you ignore reality and try to change the entity demanding the 500 million; from the FDA, to blame private intellectual property rights.

Phatscotty wrote:Well, that is what happens when you ignore reality and try to change the entity demanding the 500 million; from the FDA, to blame private intellectual property rights.

Yeah, you're not making any sense.


What the f*ck are you on about?

King Doctor wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Well, that is what happens when you ignore reality and try to change the entity demanding the 500 million; from the FDA, to blame private intellectual property rights.

Yeah, you're not making any sense.


What the f*ck are you on about?

:Repeat: talking about gov't standing in the way of medical innovations, as stated about 3 posts ago, also as stated in the post that you replied to. Are you even reading the posts? because that could explain the confusion.

When the FDA demands 500 million just to apply, it seems very unlikely that many ideas will survive the process, and also guarantees that those drugs approved will cost a fortune.

King Doctor wrote:

Night Strike wrote:I guess the administration couldn't bother being asked on the record questions about whether the Medicare head supported the British Health Care system that rations care.

Newsflash. We ration more than the UK. Our system utterly shuts out thousands and ensures that fewer and fewer doctors stay in primary practice or in high-risk specialities.

Rationing and triage are both nasty words, but they are necessary. Most of us would just rather have those decisions made by doctors, not the corporate heads of insurance companies who have a responsibility, not to protect us, but to ensure that stockholders get the highest return for their money.

Phatscotty wrote:Are you even reading the posts? because that could explain the confusion.

Now now, no need to get all defensive. All you need to do is calm down and try to articulate your ideas a little more clearly.

Phatscotty wrote:When the FDA demands 500 million just to apply, it seems very unlikely that many ideas will survive the process, and also guarantees that those drugs approved will cost a fortune.

Why would the cost of the process have any bearing on ideas surviving it? That's crazy talk.

Also, I think that you will find that IP protection, in and of itself, makes protected items cost a fortune; what with it basically being a state-sanctioned monopoly. But you are of course missing the point, the cost for the protection of succesful ideas makes it possible to continue funding other developing ideas in the future (and of course deters speculative patent abuse). The drug manufacturers will make a fortune either way, why not take a cut to ensure that there is a pipeline of drugs being developed for the future?

PS. I note that, once again, I'm arguing with Phattscotty about a supposed 'fact' that he has provided no actual evidence for. Care to point us to this $500Million fee that you seem to want to discuss in so much detail?