Conquer Club

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Oh shit, I change "solely" to "primarily," and my post is fine. Her criticism on corporations still is "zero-sum and black-and-white." My main point of her overlooking the means of the current outcome still holds true. She fits that category. Here she is blaming companies ("as the worst") or youngsters, when she should also include the role of the political and legal institutions. But she doesn't, thus her view is incomplete which leads her to an erroneous conclusion.

MY views are distorted? Seems like my comment was in response to someone claiming that only the companies were solely paying for research and therefore have no obligation to taxpayers. They are blatantly NOT. I also said compassion should matter in our country.

I made no further claims in that post, despite your protests.

If you keep blaming certain groups while overlooking others, then I'll keep calling your view distorted. I already explained why.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

rdsrds2120 wrote:True, but I think there's a definite difference between free and fair/affordable in this case of health care.

-rd

Did you have to pay for the equipment, materials, and people to make those medicines?

'
Tax payers DO pay for most medical research.
We don't get the patents, because the law prohibits it, but we do fund the research.

This is not true. The drug companies pay to run those trials. They hire a Medical Research Facility to run the tests for them. But, they pay all the fees, which include not only the logistical costs of the study, but the compensation for the volunteers, the compensation for the doctors, techs, basically anybody working on the study, etc.

I actually worked at a phase 1 medical research facility as a Research Tech. When we did our time sheets, we had to attribute each hour of work to a specific company. The drug companies payed us directly. Or rather, they were charged based on how many hours us techs worked on their study. Yes, PPD payed us, but that money came directly from the drug companies.

And this is just a phase 1 study. You still have Phase 2, 3, and 4, plus the preliminary studies done on animals. Oh, also, there has to be a "First time in human" study, where the drug company has to pay to run a study on one person just to ensure that taking the medication won't kill or seriously harm a human being.

There are serious costs with bringing a new medication to the market. Now, I don't agree with big pharma at all, and I think we could do better with those in extreme poverty, but to ignore the costs these companies must endure is foolish. Millions of dollars and thousands of hours go into getting a single drug onto the market. And hey, I sympathize...a medicine I have to take costs about $80 for a one month supply. Now that's nothing like a $900 medicine, but I see where she is coming from.

tkr4lf wrote:The drug companies payed us directly.

You Son Of A Bitch!!

Listen to more NPR, and you'll see what you did by accepting that money should be criminal.

bradleybadly wrote:

tkr4lf wrote:The drug companies payed us directly.

You Son Of A Bitch!!

Listen to more NPR, and you'll see what you did by accepting that money should be criminal.

Yeah, drawing blood and taking vital signs is horrible.

haha, I know I was working for some evil fucks, but hey, it was actually a pretty good job.

pmchugh wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:Give it time__ I'm sure the care will be equally shitty for all. That's best baby!

While the NHS isn't perfect it still delivers equal and relatively high quality health care and has been doing so for 64 years. How much more time should we give it?

It doesn't sound like it.

ViperOverLord wrote:

pmchugh wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:Give it time__ I'm sure the care will be equally shitty for all. That's best baby!

While the NHS isn't perfect it still delivers equal and relatively high quality health care and has been doing so for 64 years. How much more time should we give it?

It doesn't sound like it.

Well done you found one of the critics of the NHS, yes it isn't perfect I said that but how about you come up with your own arguments or thoughts rather than taking, at face value, the comments of a Southeast-England christian conservative who basically wants to americanise our entire political system?

The fact of the matter is we spend a lot less money on healthcare than the US, we cover people equally and fairly and the health care in the UK is not significantly worse than any other developed country.

pmchugh wrote:Well done you found one of the critics of the NHS, yes it isn't perfect I said that but how about you come up with your own arguments or thoughts rather than taking, at face value, the comments of a Southeast-England christian conservative who basically wants to americanise our entire political system?

The fact of the matter is we spend a lot less money on healthcare than the US, we cover people equally and fairly and the health care in the UK is not significantly worse than any other developed country.

When was the last time useful drugs were actually invented in the UK? Or any other country that has socialized medicine? Only free markets will develop new drugs and treatments, not ones that mandate costs and which drugs are allowed to be offered.

Night Strike wrote:

pmchugh wrote:Well done you found one of the critics of the NHS, yes it isn't perfect I said that but how about you come up with your own arguments or thoughts rather than taking, at face value, the comments of a Southeast-England christian conservative who basically wants to americanise our entire political system?

The fact of the matter is we spend a lot less money on healthcare than the US, we cover people equally and fairly and the health care in the UK is not significantly worse than any other developed country.

When was the last time useful drugs were actually invented in the UK? Or any other country that has socialized medicine? Only free markets will develop new drugs and treatments, not ones that mandate costs and which drugs are allowed to be offered.

All hail the pharmaceutical companies who so selflessly develop medicines to benefit the people. They are scaremongers, who churn out new drugs on a constant basis at extraordinary prices to make profits. They would gladly see the whole of america steeped in disease so that they could rake in the money.

All of this is of course irrelevant as large pharmaceutical companies exist within the UK:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ph ... ed_Kingdom

ViperOverLord wrote:

pmchugh wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:Give it time__ I'm sure the care will be equally shitty for all. That's best baby!

While the NHS isn't perfect it still delivers equal and relatively high quality health care and has been doing so for 64 years. How much more time should we give it?

It doesn't sound like it.

Ah yes...definitely, it's important to find out what the politicians think of the medical system. That's definitely the way to find accurate information. Well done!

Night Strike wrote:

pmchugh wrote:Well done you found one of the critics of the NHS, yes it isn't perfect I said that but how about you come up with your own arguments or thoughts rather than taking, at face value, the comments of a Southeast-England christian conservative who basically wants to americanise our entire political system?

The fact of the matter is we spend a lot less money on healthcare than the US, we cover people equally and fairly and the health care in the UK is not significantly worse than any other developed country.

When was the last time useful drugs were actually invented in the UK? Or any other country that has socialized medicine? Only free markets will develop new drugs and treatments, not ones that mandate costs and which drugs are allowed to be offered.

The "free market" you talk about here in America has more likelihood to not really work on actual cures, rather preferring to deal with symptomologies instead because those provide a continuous cash flow whereas a cure is a one-time deal. Yeah, that's a hell of a deal you've got there, Night Strike.

Night Strike wrote:

pmchugh wrote:Well done you found one of the critics of the NHS, yes it isn't perfect I said that but how about you come up with your own arguments or thoughts rather than taking, at face value, the comments of a Southeast-England christian conservative who basically wants to americanise our entire political system?

The fact of the matter is we spend a lot less money on healthcare than the US, we cover people equally and fairly and the health care in the UK is not significantly worse than any other developed country.

When was the last time useful drugs were actually invented in the UK? Or any other country that has socialized medicine? Only free markets will develop new drugs and treatments, not ones that mandate costs and which drugs are allowed to be offered.

OUR system is not a free market system. Companies take government funded research and "tweek" it or work on things that will provide quick pay offs.

Viagra.. not cures for breast cancer, never mind malaria.

There are 2 primary reasons the US has provided so many drugs to date. The first is our sheer size. Our institutions have attracted people from all over. Other places had good research, but we tended to have more.

AND.. our wonderful education system, particularly the higher education system that has been open to more people than other countries' systems.

NOTHING about free markets. Sorry, that is pure illusion. (and no, you CANNOT find this by checking patents because the government does not get patents)

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

pmchugh wrote:Well done you found one of the critics of the NHS, yes it isn't perfect I said that but how about you come up with your own arguments or thoughts rather than taking, at face value, the comments of a Southeast-England christian conservative who basically wants to americanise our entire political system?

The fact of the matter is we spend a lot less money on healthcare than the US, we cover people equally and fairly and the health care in the UK is not significantly worse than any other developed country.

When was the last time useful drugs were actually invented in the UK? Or any other country that has socialized medicine? Only free markets will develop new drugs and treatments, not ones that mandate costs and which drugs are allowed to be offered.

OUR system is not a free market system. Companies take government funded research and "tweek" it or work on things that will provide quick pay offs.

Viagra.. not cures for breast cancer, never mind malaria.

There are 2 primary reasons the US has provided so many drugs to date. The first is our sheer size. Our institutions have attracted people from all over. Other places had good research, but we tended to have more.

AND.. our wonderful education system, particularly the higher education system that has been open to more people than other countries' systems.

NOTHING about free markets. Sorry, that is pure illusion. (and no, you CANNOT find this by checking patents because the government does not get patents)

Once again, you are talking out of your ass. Viagra was originally a heart medicine. It was during phase 1 testing that they noticed the side effect of massive erections. Fun fact: The PPD phase 1 clinic here in Austin that I worked at actually tested Viagra.

Also, these companies don't take government funded research and "tweek" it. They have extensive R&D departments of their own that do the research, and then Contract Research Organizations to do the actual studies. The only part the government plays in any of this is the FDA and their many requirements, but that is all about ensuring that the drugs that actually reach the market are safe.

You really should try to learn about things before you just start spouting stuff out about things of which you have no knowledge.

Woodruff wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:

pmchugh wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:Give it time__ I'm sure the care will be equally shitty for all. That's best baby!

While the NHS isn't perfect it still delivers equal and relatively high quality health care and has been doing so for 64 years. How much more time should we give it?

It doesn't sound like it.

Ah yes...definitely, it's important to find out what the politicians think of the medical system. That's definitely the way to find accurate information. Well done!

What makes you think the Affordable Care Act had anything to do with anything other than politics? Further, who should we listen to? Doctors? What do doctors think of the British healthcare system? What about the American healthcare system? What do they think about the Affordable Care Act?

This is not all directed at you Woodruff (obviously), but we cannot pick and choose what experts we listen to depending upon whether we agree or disagree for political reasons. Most doctors (I don't know the percentage off the top of my head) don't like the current American system AND don't like the Affordable Care Act.

tkr4lf wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

pmchugh wrote:Well done you found one of the critics of the NHS, yes it isn't perfect I said that but how about you come up with your own arguments or thoughts rather than taking, at face value, the comments of a Southeast-England christian conservative who basically wants to americanise our entire political system?

The fact of the matter is we spend a lot less money on healthcare than the US, we cover people equally and fairly and the health care in the UK is not significantly worse than any other developed country.

When was the last time useful drugs were actually invented in the UK? Or any other country that has socialized medicine? Only free markets will develop new drugs and treatments, not ones that mandate costs and which drugs are allowed to be offered.

OUR system is not a free market system. Companies take government funded research and "tweek" it or work on things that will provide quick pay offs.

Viagra.. not cures for breast cancer, never mind malaria.

There are 2 primary reasons the US has provided so many drugs to date. The first is our sheer size. Our institutions have attracted people from all over. Other places had good research, but we tended to have more.

AND.. our wonderful education system, particularly the higher education system that has been open to more people than other countries' systems.

NOTHING about free markets. Sorry, that is pure illusion. (and no, you CANNOT find this by checking patents because the government does not get patents)

Once again, you are talking out of your ass. Viagra was originally a heart medicine. It was during phase 1 testing that they noticed the side effect of massive erections. Fun fact: The PPD phase 1 clinic here in Austin that I worked at actually tested Viagra.

Also, these companies don't take government funded research and "tweek" it. They have extensive R&D departments of their own that do the research, and then Contract Research Organizations to do the actual studies. The only part the government plays in any of this is the FDA and their many requirements, but that is all about ensuring that the drugs that actually reach the market are safe.

You really should try to learn about things before you just start spouting stuff out about things of which you have no knowledge.

Why? Then she would have nothing to say!

tkr4lf wrote:Viagra was originally a heart medicine. It was during phase 1 testing that they noticed the side effect of massive erections.

I'd heard that before. Can you imagine the testee's (hehe...testee's) thoughts?

thegreekdog wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:

pmchugh wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:Give it time__ I'm sure the care will be equally shitty for all. That's best baby!

While the NHS isn't perfect it still delivers equal and relatively high quality health care and has been doing so for 64 years. How much more time should we give it?

It doesn't sound like it.

Ah yes...definitely, it's important to find out what the politicians think of the medical system. That's definitely the way to find accurate information. Well done!

What makes you think the Affordable Care Act had anything to do with anything other than politics?

I don't. What makes you think I think that?

thegreekdog wrote:Further, who should we listen to?

It seems to me that the users of the system would be the most relevant view.

thegreekdog wrote:This is not all directed at you Woodruff (obviously), but we cannot pick and choose what experts we listen to depending upon whether we agree or disagree for political reasons.

I agree completely.

tkr4lf wrote:Once again, you are talking out of your ass....

...FDA and their many requirements, but that is all about ensuring that the drugs that actually reach the market are safe. .

Now you're the one talking out of your ass.

So many FDA workers go to work for the companies after they push the drugs through, some consider the FDA as a simply lobby for them.
Its not that pharmaceutical companies don't do some great things, and come up with cures for horrible diseases, its more that they use the general public as guinea pigs for them, and to some degree, without their full knowledge.

My source for this statement is indirect, so can be taken with a grain of salt, but it originates from people in the FDA itself.

pmchugh wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

pmchugh wrote:Well done you found one of the critics of the NHS, yes it isn't perfect I said that but how about you come up with your own arguments or thoughts rather than taking, at face value, the comments of a Southeast-England christian conservative who basically wants to americanise our entire political system?

The fact of the matter is we spend a lot less money on healthcare than the US, we cover people equally and fairly and the health care in the UK is not significantly worse than any other developed country.

When was the last time useful drugs were actually invented in the UK? Or any other country that has socialized medicine? Only free markets will develop new drugs and treatments, not ones that mandate costs and which drugs are allowed to be offered.

All hail the pharmaceutical companies who so selflessly develop medicines to benefit the people. They are scaremongers, who churn out new drugs on a constant basis at extraordinary prices to make profits. They would gladly see the whole of america steeped in disease so that they could rake in the money.

All of this is of course irrelevant as large pharmaceutical companies exist within the UK:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ph ... ed_Kingdom

This is perhaps partially true for some people, and maybe even the owners of the companies, but it is ridiculous to discount the labor of love that many, many researchers spend, trying to cure diseases, as a goal in and of itself.

Perhaps you dont understand that some go to their job, not only for the money, but chose it so they could do the work that they do, because they enjoyed doing it, and helping however they could. I agree there is much corruption, but to insinuate that all motivation is pure greed, is so overstated, as to make the statement pointless.

AAFitz wrote:

tkr4lf wrote:Once again, you are talking out of your ass....

...FDA and their many requirements, but that is all about ensuring that the drugs that actually reach the market are safe. .

Now you're the one talking out of your ass.

So many FDA workers go to work for the companies after they push the drugs through, some consider the FDA as a simply lobby for them.
Its not that pharmaceutical companies don't do some great things, and come up with cures for horrible diseases, its more that they use the general public as guinea pigs for them, and to some degree, without their full knowledge.

My source for this statement is indirect, so can be taken with a grain of salt, but it originates from people in the FDA itself.

Sure, billion dollar lawsuits be damned! Let's force these guinea pigs to take medicine which we can't force them to take! Muahahaha!! MUahahahAHHAH!!!

On a more serious note, yes, the regulatory agencies have to work closely with the firms in order to understand how to implement their policies effectively. Unfortunately, (yet rationally) firms reduce costs by having their own guys in the agencies (or by hiring agency-guys into the firms). They're both in cahoots, and both responsible.

A major obstacle to improvement is from the special status the FDA enjoys: it's a government-granted monopoly, which legally prevents competing agencies from joining the market. This is great for the FDA when it fails to certify that FDA-approved drugs are safe. It doesn't go bankrupt from the legal consequences, so the game continues! What fun!

AAFitz wrote:This is perhaps partially true for some people, and maybe even the owners of the companies, but it is ridiculous to discount the labor of love that many, many researchers spend, trying to cure diseases, as a goal in and of itself.

Perhaps you dont understand that some go to their job, not only for the money, but chose it so they could do the work that they do, because they enjoyed doing it, and helping however they could. I agree there is much corruption, but to insinuate that all motivation is pure greed, is so overstated, as to make the statement pointless.

So perhaps I have a knack to over-exaggerate, why don't you go ahead and kill me. The point is still valid, the big pharma companies would make better profit and gain from half-fixing diseases and symptoms than going the full way and as a result they churn out drugs in quantity rather than quality.

Night Strike wrote:

pmchugh wrote:Well done you found one of the critics of the NHS, yes it isn't perfect I said that but how about you come up with your own arguments or thoughts rather than taking, at face value, the comments of a Southeast-England christian conservative who basically wants to americanise our entire political system?

The fact of the matter is we spend a lot less money on healthcare than the US, we cover people equally and fairly and the health care in the UK is not significantly worse than any other developed country.

When was the last time useful drugs were actually invented in the UK? Or any other country that has socialized medicine? Only free markets will develop new drugs and treatments, not ones that mandate costs and which drugs are allowed to be offered.

Are you being serious? It seems like you're confusing the NHS with the pharmaceutical industry.

Night Strike wrote:

pmchugh wrote:Well done you found one of the critics of the NHS, yes it isn't perfect I said that but how about you come up with your own arguments or thoughts rather than taking, at face value, the comments of a Southeast-England christian conservative who basically wants to americanise our entire political system?

The fact of the matter is we spend a lot less money on healthcare than the US, we cover people equally and fairly and the health care in the UK is not significantly worse than any other developed country.

When was the last time useful drugs were actually invented in the UK? Or any other country that has socialized medicine? Only free markets will develop new drugs and treatments, not ones that mandate costs and which drugs are allowed to be offered.

1 out of every 4 of the biggest selling drugs were developed in the Uk. 2 of the top 5 pharmaceutical companies in the world are from the uk.

Aradhus wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

pmchugh wrote:Well done you found one of the critics of the NHS, yes it isn't perfect I said that but how about you come up with your own arguments or thoughts rather than taking, at face value, the comments of a Southeast-England christian conservative who basically wants to americanise our entire political system?

The fact of the matter is we spend a lot less money on healthcare than the US, we cover people equally and fairly and the health care in the UK is not significantly worse than any other developed country.

When was the last time useful drugs were actually invented in the UK? Or any other country that has socialized medicine? Only free markets will develop new drugs and treatments, not ones that mandate costs and which drugs are allowed to be offered.

1 out of every 4 of the biggest selling drugs were developed in the Uk. 2 of the top 5 pharmaceutical companies in the world are from the uk.

Hmm... I'm going to need a link to the GlaxoSmithKline website that shows that the drugs they developed were actually developed in the UK (and not somewhere else).

I'm also going to need a link showing the relative corporate tax rates of the UK compared to the United States to discuss whether or not something other than the unbelievably awesome healthcare system corresponding to these companies being in the UK.

Finally, I'm going to need the founding date of these top 2 companies and the date that the NHS was formed.

Thanks bye.

thegreekdog wrote:

Aradhus wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

pmchugh wrote:Well done you found one of the critics of the NHS, yes it isn't perfect I said that but how about you come up with your own arguments or thoughts rather than taking, at face value, the comments of a Southeast-England christian conservative who basically wants to americanise our entire political system?

The fact of the matter is we spend a lot less money on healthcare than the US, we cover people equally and fairly and the health care in the UK is not significantly worse than any other developed country.

When was the last time useful drugs were actually invented in the UK? Or any other country that has socialized medicine? Only free markets will develop new drugs and treatments, not ones that mandate costs and which drugs are allowed to be offered.

1 out of every 4 of the biggest selling drugs were developed in the Uk. 2 of the top 5 pharmaceutical companies in the world are from the uk.

Hmm... I'm going to need a link to the GlaxoSmithKline website that shows that the drugs they developed were actually developed in the UK (and not somewhere else).

I'm also going to need a link showing the relative corporate tax rates of the UK compared to the United States to discuss whether or not something other than the unbelievably awesome healthcare system corresponding to these companies being in the UK.

Finally, I'm going to need the founding date of these top 2 companies and the date that the NHS was formed.

Thanks bye.

Of course you will. And when provided those sources will be dismissed as either proving your point or totally biased. Maybe google a little bit and find the relevant information you require. Seriously, when I asked you about your info on the Warren Buffet thread I just asked for your points. And that was considered borderline unreasonable by you.

You probably wouldn't understand the sources anyway, as you're from the US (I'm assuming that you're ok with me saying that- it's not something I would say to anyone else, but it's a symmetrical reply).

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Aradhus wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

pmchugh wrote:Well done you found one of the critics of the NHS, yes it isn't perfect I said that but how about you come up with your own arguments or thoughts rather than taking, at face value, the comments of a Southeast-England christian conservative who basically wants to americanise our entire political system?

The fact of the matter is we spend a lot less money on healthcare than the US, we cover people equally and fairly and the health care in the UK is not significantly worse than any other developed country.

When was the last time useful drugs were actually invented in the UK? Or any other country that has socialized medicine? Only free markets will develop new drugs and treatments, not ones that mandate costs and which drugs are allowed to be offered.

1 out of every 4 of the biggest selling drugs were developed in the Uk. 2 of the top 5 pharmaceutical companies in the world are from the uk.

Hmm... I'm going to need a link to the GlaxoSmithKline website that shows that the drugs they developed were actually developed in the UK (and not somewhere else).

I'm also going to need a link showing the relative corporate tax rates of the UK compared to the United States to discuss whether or not something other than the unbelievably awesome healthcare system corresponding to these companies being in the UK.

Finally, I'm going to need the founding date of these top 2 companies and the date that the NHS was formed.

Thanks bye.

Of course you will. And when provided those sources will be dismissed as either proving your point or totally biased. Maybe google a little bit and find the relevant information you require. Seriously, when I asked you about your info on the Warren Buffet thread I just asked for your points. And that was considered borderline unreasonable by you.

You probably wouldn't understand the sources anyway, as you're from the US (I'm assuming that you're ok with me saying that- it's not something I would say to anyone else, but it's a symmetrical reply).

First, I didn't ask you. You don't have to provide shit.

Second, I already know the answers. I was making a point (as I suspect you know given your angry and upset reaction to my post).

Third, you dismissed my Warren Buffett discussion out of hand because you don't agree with it, not because you didn't understand it (unless you're an abject moron, and your grasp of the English language leads me to believe you're not). You didn't ask about it, you decided I was wrong. And you didn't come back after I explained for the fourth time. That's sad.

Fourth, if you provide me with those sources, they will in fact prove my point. So?