NEWS: Right Wing Nightmare: Michael Moore Is Right

I'm shocked

pass

Yeah, sure your "wife" is really a psychologist. I've talked to my aunt, who's a real psychologist, in an office and everything, and based on your posts, she doesn't think your wife knows anything about psychology at all.

It's true. There is no research in the UK or France or Sweden. Nope. None. Zip. It is a void in the search for cures.

Oh, look at you, challenging my world. She is a doctor of psychology, working at a small outfit called UCLA. I'm sorry your "aunt" is not as smart as my "wife"

And by the way, my wife would probably say Monestruc is a borderline personality. I can't be sure, but that would be my best guess.

My impression has been that much of the most profitable research has little to do treating conditions based on the public need (especially chronic conditions affecting the poor), and more to do with treatment of conditions that affect the relatively affluent (such as depression and impotence). I could be wrong about that, of course, but it seems to me that if that is the case, then much of our research is comparatively frivolous anyway, and could stand some encouragement in the direction of basic preventive care (which would presumably be cheaper anyway).

Again, that's my impression. I might be wrong on the economics of it, which is why I'm directing this comment to you.

Almost all the drug companies have moved their research to the United States. Of course there are universities and research going on, but that's seperate from being able to bring a drug to market

Is it a Montestruc marathon tonight ?

That's very extremely true.

Also, on some level, if governments try to "eminent domain" important stuff like AIDS/cancer cures, it's a natural defense against governments claiming moral high ground in seizing the IP.

Good to know. Thanks.

Ah ha!

The health "needs" of the "poor" are more important than the heath "needs" of other classes in the USA who are willing to pay for treatment of them.

Right.

Treatment of depression is "frivolous".

Treatment of impotence is "frivolous".

Tell me about it after you have either and do without treatment, or better yet have a loved one do without treatment, in solidarity wit the "poor".

Yes, very well.

Nah. I am thinking paranoid personality disorder.

'Course that doesn't include the ADHD and probably FAS to boot. But, hey, benefit of the doubt and all that.

One very free-market idea that has been proposed would be allow companies to "trade" patent-time on a life-saving drug for a cash cow like viagra. Or even to extend that idea and allow the company to bargain the amount of years traded, and then even to resell the extra patent years

Boner pills for $1000 Alex ?

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

of course, unless you have aids

chainlink said:

oyaji said:

Which is more important and useful, cheap AIDS drugs or expensive boner pills?

Boner pills for $1000 Alex ?

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

of course unless you have aids

THERE'S AIDS IN THE POOL!

POOL'S CLOSED!

This is beyond anything I'd come to expect even of you. If you knew anything about how disease vectors (or even complex industrial civilizations) work, you'd shut the hell up. Or start backpedalling, as you so dearly love to do when you're incontestably wrong. Either way, at this point, you're just being a loudmouth with no contribution to make.

Basically all you're saying is that you honestly believe that poor people should die of treatable diseases because, as a matter of principle, they need to be punished for being poor.

Nice.

However, I did find this:

To be at least somewhat amusing, and gratifyingly revealing, so thanks for that at least.

And just for the record, you're the one starting with the "class warfare" rhetoric, here. I was talking about the health of the American people in general.

Simply put, you don't have a right to my money, my possessions, my time, or my personage.

This entire article flies in the face of the idea of freedom, and proves that you have no understanding of the history of health care in this country. You do know that our government was responsible for the creation of HMO's, right? Every time our system as gotten shittier it has been directly as a result of government intervention.

But that's OK, right? I mean, the government can fix everything. We just need MORE OF IT!

Moreover, there is currently no country running a socialized medical system that has near the same standard of medical care that we do, much less what we had pre-HMO's.

Socialized medicine doesn't mean that we get equal treatment. In any socialized system there are still the "haves" in the government and other elite individuals who get better care than everyone else. All a socialized system guarantees is that the vast majority of Americans will enjoy an equally shitty level of care.

Fuck you. I'm scared to death of people like you with your uninformed, misguided good-intentions bullshit who want to make idiotic decisions that directly threaten my freedom or, in this particular case, my access to the best medical care.

I've seen socialized medicine at work. It is fucking scary. You do NOT want that.

You want to see something fixed? Get the goddamn federal government out of health care. Last time I checked I believe Ron Paul was the only physician running for President, and strangely enough this is exactly the stance he takes (and once again, for the millionth time, the man gave discounted or free services to poor individuals, so he's hardly in it for the money).

Then again, what else do I expect here? FTR, you are a shining example of what happens when someone gets the idea that they are innately brilliant, and don't have to actually put work into understanding what the fuck they're talking about. Give that person a microphone or a little corner of the Web to call their own, and you get the simple-minded regurgitation of other people's poorly thought-out ideas that you see here.

You don't know what you're talking about. I'm sure you're a really nice person, but you don't deserve your job. At least show some journalistic responsibility and do some goddamn research.

Or just take a shit on the page and press "Submit." It will have the same editorial value as what you normally write.

That's a little complex for me to follow, but I would definitely agree in principle that incentives have a better track record of results than central planning.

Basically: If you give up the patent and allow companies to churn out generic versions of your AIDS cure, we will let you double the patent time on your boner pills with excellent profit margins

Ah, thanks. That makes sense. It even sounds potentially workable.

Anyway, I've got to go to a barbecue, now. I'll have to wait till I get back later tonight to get more chances to be utterly disgusted by the self-righteous miserliness of the likes of Glaive and montestruc. Toodles.

Well, not really.

42% of all new pharmaceutical research monies were spent outside the U.S. This non-U.S. research spending produced 57% of important new drugs. 51% of which were sold to Americans.

Damn, there is so much fail in this thread!

wow. i thought you had scraped bottom. your statement should read:

so, yes, the other classes should pay for society to be healthy because to do otherwise is cruel shortsighted and because the poor can not... because theyre poor. to do otherwise is one step away from saying people deserve cancer because they are sinners.

that makes me feel ill. (if it wasn't such a depressing subject, i'd say to insert rim-shot here)..

and sure.. there's alot to be desired with public healthcare.. but i'd much rather have something than nothing at all..

case in point.. surgery i had on my eye last year.. i'm afraid to look up how much it would have cost in the states.. and it's probably saved me from any further vision loss in that eye..

FearTheReaper I laughed hard at the direct assault on those who are opposed to universal health care. Those opposed reactions to the article is hilarious.

Of course, the question that comes up is how many of the people here have worked in the health care industry for any extended length of time. I spent 3 years working for a health care company specializing in oncology and radiology. One of my many functions was analyzing data for the internal billing department; I can safely say that every single one of the health care insurance companies we dealt with are corrupt in one way or another. The billing department has collectors, and you'd expect that they'd be dealing with mostly patients that can't pay, the reality is the majority of collectors at the company spend their time arguing with insurance companies. The outline of the typical process is:

1) Bill is submitted to insurance company along with all the documentation needed to justify it.
2) Insurance company either pays bill, but often ignores bill or sends a denial notice.
3) Collector calls up insurance company (insurance company often does not answer phone) to inform them there is a bill, and they need to pay.Insurance company often denies that they have any responsibility for bill, occasionally sends bill directly to patient.
4) Collector calls again, often has to argue with insurance company about why they have to pay the bill. Insurance company reps act as if they are being lied to, and doubt the patient was even seen.
5) Finally insurance company gives up and pays.

It is important to point out that this happens for things that are covered. Heaven help you if you receive a treatment or service that is not covered. It is also important to note that this particular medical group is large and deals with the insurance companies all the time, the procedures are not elective and it isn't like the insurance company would have any logical reason to doubt the bill.

Note we are talking about oncology patients, people with cancer. These companies try every trick imaginable to get out of having paying the bill and having the patient pay it instead. It is disgusting behavior.

Never mind that the insurance companies negotiate a lower rate for services than a patient would have to pay. As for how much you'd have to pay, if you're living with cancer in this country without insurance (and you're not excessively rich), your life is completely ruined (of course luckily for you if you have no insurance, you'll probably not get the testing procedures needed to identify your problem and die anyway)

Insurance companies do not care about your health, they care about money.