Obamacare 5 years later. Crow, anyone?

[anduin]

So let me get this straight: the exceedingly high prices I am paying for health care are to subsidize massively profitable medical and pharmaceutical companies?

Yes, socialise risks, privatise profits. Works every time for the lucky few.

 

[pgwenthold]

6 months to have a surgery in Canada or the UK?

Even if true, I have to ask, and?

Shoot, here in the good old USA, with the system that EG3000 is drooling over, it took me 3 months to get an OFFICE VISIT to see a dermatologist!

My PCP referred me to derm, and I lived with the rash for 3 more months before being seen.

Nothing near as complicated as surgery, just a simple office visit to look at a rash. And it was scheduled 3 months ahead.

 

[3point14]

The rules? I don't see that in the MA. Some of my claims I justify with logic and reason. Some I provide citations for. Some I make to stimulate discussion. I have no obligation to respond to you or anybody else, and nobody is forcing you to read my posts.

I'm talking about the rules of reasonable debate. They're not in the MA, no, but you will note the flurry of posts in response to yours pointing out that the form, in debate, is to demonstrate one's own claims, not to make them and insist that other's prove them for you or disprove them. If you don't understand the rules of formal debate then I suggest you go away and learn them.

I would point out, from the following quote of yours:

How about you doing a little work yourself and actually contribute to the discussion? Other than tedious demands for evidence that is.

That you, apparently, find demands for you to actually support what you say with evidence to be 'tedious'. I think that says just about everything really.

You have a lovely day.

 

[sunmaster14]

I'm talking about the rules of reasonable debate. They're not in the MA, no, but you will note the flurry of posts in response to yous pointing out that the form, in debate, is to demonstrate one's own claims, not to make them and insist that other's prove them for you or disprove them. If you don't understand the rules of formal debate then I suggest you go away and learn them.

Actually, according to the rules of reasonable debate that I learned and follow, you don't just repeat "where's your evidence?" like a mindless parrot. You actually try to engage and provide a counterclaim. My evidence is logical argument based on facts that everybody knows. Everybody knows that the US pays higher prices for medical care. That money doesn't just go into the pockets of bigwigs who use it to buy yachts because it's a free market on the supply side, so there is competition for those dollars. Now, the reason that the US pays such high prices is that there is too much demand because the consumer is insulated from the cost of his consumption decisions. But the net effect of that is to stimulate further research and development. This is basic economics. That is evidence enough.

 

[sunmaster14]

This is a skeptics forum. For crying in the dark "skeptic" is in the name of the forum. Basing decisions on evidence and not some one flapping his or her gums is what skeptics do. When someone asks me for evidence I either provide it or I withdraw the claim.

So, how about you stop making baseless claims and provide your citations like the rest of us.

If I followed your methodology, I would repeat an unsupported claim that I've made hundreds of times before, and then provide the same old links to the same old sources that don't support the claim at all.

 

[Nihilianth]

If you understood economics, you would see that I did not move the goalposts. Supporting eye-watering margins for the pharmaceutical market will spur R&D. The market is competitive you know. If one company starts making eye-watering margins, other companies will be formed and race in to try to grab a piece of the almost $400 billion dollars Americans spend on prescription drugs every year. For example, the rate of biotech company formation in the US is astounding. Almost every research doctor I know is involved with two or more startups.

R&D is a closed system here in the US. That $400 billion (citation?) market for R&D research in the US, is not a market that a foreign corporation can get their hands on. Just because it is competitive and highly profitable in the US, doesn't mean that it is competitive and highly profitable elsewhere.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The other way, is for the workforce to stand together on a united front and demand better wages. When it comes to supply and demand, there is, afterall, a single market of employees available for work. If people do what they did a hundred years ago and withdraw their labor, employers would be forced to give in.

Oh absolutely - unions are certainly one method for increasing negotiating power. It doesn't affect supply or demand all that much, it's more of a monopoly position.

the only challenge is that it's difficult to unionize industries where there are many smaller businesses, or where the job duties are highly varied. Still, it's a good middle-step.

ETA: The only time I ever have a problems with unions is when they're mandatory. When you must be part of a union in order to work at that job, and no alternative exists. I don't really see that as a whole lot better, because it causes many of the same problems with dynamics that occur when there's no union and a large employer exerting undue power over the employees. It's just the other way round - a single large provider of labor exerting undue influence over the set of employers. As long as they're voluntary I'm all for it. Of course, that does assume that employers aren't engaging in shifty sneaky dastardly tactics ala Walmart. Not always a good assumption, that.

ETA2: Happy Birthday!!!

 

[Meadmaker]

Your aunt would not have died in the US. Everyone gets coverage, prior to Obamcare, if you have a life threatening illness the government still pays.

I'm sure you post a lot and have a hard time remembering what you post, but we weren't discussing what would happen to my aunt had she lived in the US. You had made the following post:

Well let them keep their health care! In fact let everyone keep whatever care they want!

Tell them that since everyone gets the right to choose they are only going to be subsidized by others that participate in the program.

Let me know how that works out

Under such a system, which exists neither in the US nor the UK, she would have died.


In the US, if she had insurance the outcome would likely be about the same as it was in the UK. If she didn't, she would probably receive inferior care. She might die, and she would certainly be destitute. Her daughter would face a horrible choice, to contribute to her care and improve her lot in life, or face the prospect of neglecting her own children in order to care for her mother.

The US and UK have taken different approaches to make it less likely that anyone has to make such a horrible choice.

You, on the other hand, seem indifferent to that possibility.

 

[RandFan]

The rules? I don't see that in the MA. Some of my claims I justify with logic and reason. Some I provide citations for. Some I make to stimulate discussion. I have no obligation to respond to you or anybody else, and nobody is forcing you to read my posts.

As skeptics we have every right to point out the times you do not provide sources.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Well, our health care system is all screwed up. Ridiculous incentives have caused major inefficiencies to arise.

No argument from me here.

Well, that's why I put my ideas out here for review. I want to see if somebody can explain to me if and why I'm wrong. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, if I learn something from it.

Maybe someone can. It's just too far out of my realm of expertise for me to have any actual useful information. I think we're both working from our mental frameworks and building assertions on assertions...

I'm content to say "maybe, maybe not" and leave it at that. I simply don't have any more information.

 

[Nihilianth]

ETA: The only time I ever have a problems with unions is when they're mandatory. When you must be part of a union in order to work at that job, and no alternative exists. I don't really see that as a whole lot better, because it causes many of the same problems with dynamics that occur when there's no union and a large employer exerting undue power over the employees. It's just the other way round - a single large provider of labor exerting undue influence over the set of employers. As long as they're voluntary I'm all for it. Of course, that does assume that employers aren't engaging in shifty sneaky dastardly tactics ala Walmart. Not always a good assumption, that.

I can see the purpose, in some cases, to force employees into a union if they want to work a specific job in a specific industry in a specific company. Especially in these so-called "right to work" states, of which the state of PA, where I reside, is one.

ETA2: Happy Birthday!!!

Thanks. That little icon thingy it gave me scared me for a moment when I first saw it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You are talking about something entirely different, which is pharmaceutical research, and you are wrong when it comes to outcomes, namely patented medicines. One of the best objective indicators of research outcomes in medicine are patents for pharmaceuticals. I searched for all of the awarded patents from 2000 to 2013 in the class of pharmaceuticals, and I attach the results. You will see that it changes from year to year, and while the US had more pharmaceutical patents issued in 2013, for most of the previous decade Europe had more patents issued.

I think it's not a case of whether the companies are incorporated in the US or Europe though - it's a case of where their income comes from. What portion of their revenue is coming from sales in the US? That revenue is what supports R&D.

 

[RandFan]

If I followed your methodology, ¹I would repeat an unsupported claim that I've made hundreds of times before, and then provide the same old links to the same old sources ²that don't support the claim at all.

The enumerated are "declarative sentences". They are also known as "propositions" or "assertions".

Again, you utterly fail to provide any evidence for your claim. Your post is simply a rhetorical device. In addition to your fallacy by assertion you are also engaging in ad hominem poisoning of the well.

 

[Emily's Cat]

So let me get this straight: the exceedingly high prices I am paying for health care are to subsidize massively profitable medical and pharmaceutical companies?

Part of the exceedingly high prices, yes. Part of the exceedingly high prices is also to pay for the surgeon's green fees and the oncologist's brand new jag. And the hospital's complete make-over so that consumers think it's pretty. And to pay the exorbitant profits on medical supplies and devices.

Also the average 3% profit that the insurance companies make - let's not forget that

There's a LOT of profit seeking in the medical industry, and a lot less of it is from the sources normally pointed out as being greedy bastards.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm talking about the rules of reasonable debate. They're not in the MA, no, but you will note the flurry of posts in response to yours pointing out that the form, in debate, is to demonstrate one's own claims, not to make them and insist that other's prove them for you or disprove them. If you don't understand the rules of formal debate then I suggest you go away and learn them.

Actually, according to the rules of reasonable debate that I learned and follow, you don't just repeat "where's your evidence?" like a mindless parrot. You actually try to engage and provide a counterclaim.

I'm not taking sides on this. I would like to point out, however, that good discussion can take place on the basis of deductive reasoning. "Proof" doesn't always exist for discussion in the realm of ideas.

 

[Nihilianth]

I'm not taking sides on this. I would like to point out, however, that good discussion can take place on the basis of deductive reasoning. "Proof" doesn't always exist for discussion in the realm of ideas.

To be fair, sunmaster did make a pretty large, wide-sweeping claim that the rest of the world is riding on the backs of American financing of pharmaceutical R&D. 3point114 asked for a citation, and sunmaster threw it back in his face.

A lot of people seem interested in learning where he got this notion.

 

[3point14]

To be fair, sunmaster did make a pretty large, wide-sweeping claim that the rest of the world is riding on the backs of American financing of pharmaceutical R&D. 3point114 asked for a citation, and sunmaster threw it back in his face.

A lot of people seem interested in learning where he got this notion.

Ah, I've given up. Apparently 'tedious demands for evidence' are something he's not prepared to deal in.

 

[sunmaster14]

To be fair, sunmaster did make a pretty large, wide-sweeping claim that the rest of the world is riding on the backs of American financing of pharmaceutical R&D. 3point114 asked for a citation, and sunmaster threw it back in his face.

First of all, I don't believe that you want to be fair. You made a sweeping claim yourself a couple of pages ago, which I explained to you was completely wrong, and you refused to believe it (or even try to understand it) until Emily's Cat, showing amazing patience and perseverance, explained it to you in excruciating detail. There was no retraction. No acknowledgment. Nothing. So forgive me if I think you're not objective at all.

Second, my sweeping claim was supported with logic, as I've already explained. You can spend a few minutes googling around and find articles defending or attacking the proposition, but mostly defending it. If you want to find one to discuss, I'm all ears.

Third, I'm fed up with 3.14 because he accused me of dishonesty for engaging in a detailed, and very one-sided (until Emily's Cat came around), discussion about ER costs. All I have to show from that discussion are some bites on my ankles.

 

[RandFan]

Second, my sweeping claim was supported with logic, as I've already explained. You can spend a few minutes googling around and find articles defending or attacking the proposition, but mostly defending it.

This is utter BS. Many people have explained over and over why this is complete and utter BS. This is a skeptics forum. Not an opinion or editorial forum.

The burden of proof belongs to whomever made the claim. As for the logic. No.

 

[Emily's Cat]

To be fair, sunmaster did make a pretty large, wide-sweeping claim that the rest of the world is riding on the backs of American financing of pharmaceutical R&D. 3point114 asked for a citation, and sunmaster threw it back in his face.

A lot of people seem interested in learning where he got this notion.

I get that - it was intended more as a general comment than a specific opinion in this case.