Quote:
Originally Posted by wvpeach
SOho,
I must say I am becoming disappointed in you. Somebody here at the forum touted you as a intelligent well read man.
Its apparent by your response that you have not read the Physicians for a National Health Program - Health Care is a Human Right Plan.
They plan to negotiate for drugs from drug companies. Not take them from drug companies.
Besides the US tax payer pays for a lot of R&D for all kinds of industries not the least of which is the drug companies. Then we just hand them over tax payer funded research and say here run with it make billions.
Do you need me to look you up a short history on how much tax payer money is spent on R&D with universities throughout this country that goes eventually to benefit Pharma companies Soho?
I'll tell you what Soho, since somebody said your a economic whiz, lets assume that is true. Do you think its a fiscally sound policy for the US tax payer to fund R&D in any sector and not be paid part of that back by the corporations that eventually make money on that tax payer funded research?
I'll take that answer before you read the proposal put forth by the Physicians For National Healthcare if you please. Because I am sure if you ever bothered to read the plan it would take you the better part of a hour, days if you wanted to look into the links they supply . Like the American Journal of Medicine and the research they have done and why they are backing this plan because it will work.
I really am disappointed Soho, I was hoping you were a whiz, we could use some brains around AWE. I have never met the first whiz though that speaks before they educate themselves on the subject. |
I think you missed a lot in my response. First I said that I was not opposed to a universal health system, I said that I had no faith that our government could do it properly. The PHH is fine and all, but it won't be what is passed by our government.
Second, I didn't say that all health care plans would "take" from Pharma, I said that Canada does take. However, as you pointed out, a lot of money is going into R&D, and that R&D leads to new drugs. If you reduce the money available for R&D (whether by negotiating or reducing tax credits or whatever), the development of new drugs will be reduced. Now, is it possible to have UHC and not do this. Yes. However, given the atmosphere where everyone is pointing the finger at Pharma, I doubt something sensible like that would occur.
Now, do you want this? Perhaps so, perhaps the new drugs aren't worth the cost. But at least be honest about this happening. Make it part of the responsible argument rather than complain about Pharma (not that you are, but most people do). Now with UHC this could be addressed by accepting that for the first 14 years only those with supplemental insurance can have this drugs (after they go generic, the government can make all it wants) or some other reasonable give or take, but don't just say we will take money from Pharma.
As for investing in R&D. Personally no, I don't believe in the government doing it. That the government DOES do it doesn't give them ownership rights anymore than taxpayers should get something back from your house because they funded your mortgage deductions. We do get tons back from R&D, not least of which is that we are helping to employ many people who then pay taxes. Furthermore, after 14 years, we get the generic rights to the drugs.
No, the real issue is that people want things now, but they don't want to have to pay for it. Prescription drugs is all about trying to get something for nothing by ignoring that people have to spend money, and lots of it, to discover these drugs.