When the sovereign nations formed their union they didn't do it in order to provide health care. If you want health care talk to the government of your country and leave the rest of us in the union out of it.
I like that you think "proof" is a crazed leftist blog! I honestly expected some article breaking down how US research money is spent. But even if every word in your blog was true, Trump cuts to NIH don't have anything to do with my point. Otherwise, everyone already knows that NIH does basic science. I already said that in my last post. Anyway, I unfortunately don't have a crazed leftist blog post for you,only an article from Scientific American, which you many dismiss as "Big Science" or whatever... Cost to Develop New Pharmaceutical Drug Now Exceeds $2.5B
I agree with what you are saying. So now the question would become why are prices so high when cheaper generics exist. Or why don't those cheaper generics exist? The connection deserves to be looked at in more detail.
The answer is Profits - obscene profits Plus a sizeable amount of the pharmacy dollar goes into advertising - more than anywhere else. In fact here it is illegal to advertise drugs and drug companies that were having a field day marketing Panadol (Tylenol) and Nurofen (Ibobrufen) as “back pain” or “menstrual pain” specific just got their fingers rapped for false advertising
No your article does NOT say who is actually funding most of that - simply the overall cost of bringing a drug to market If you really want insight look into who is funding what Pfizer has pulled out of Alzheimers research because of the continued failures of clinical trials - they maintain it is no longer cost effective to pursue medical trials into dementia Malaria - now there is a disease that kills millions - and who is doing the research on it? Google it up don’t take my word and while you are at it look at how many of those URLs end in .au. Yes it is Australia (and the UK) that are leading the research into Malaria vaccines NOT repeat NOT Big Pharma - why? Because there is no profit is researching a drug that only has a market in the third world. https://www.qimrberghofer.edu.au/diseases/malaria/ https://www.qimrberghofer.edu.au/diseases/malaria/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5878010/
Here's MY proposal. Buy your own damn insurance, or find an employer who will buy and/or subsidize a good policy on their dime.
No freedom of speech Down Under, huh? I suffer from extreme nerve damage to my lower legs that renders me unable to stand or walk. To date, no drug exists to help/fix that. If that were to change tomorrow, I would greatly appreciate being made aware of it from an advertisement.
How? If there's no advertising, it's not as if doctors somehow remain perfectly informed. They are bombarded with enough information as it is.
That is precisely how Republicans do things. I DICTATE we will put a 10% this, or a moratorium on that. STUPUD. Some things should happen, and others should not. Making pronouncements, is naïve and detached.
Well if 10% of everyone's income isn't enough to pay for your healthcare scheme, how much will it be? 20%? 30%? 60%??
I'll have to think this through. So if a doctor prescribed you a drug and a different drug appeared on TV, you've made an informed medical decision that it's better for you and you will ask your doctor to prescribe you the new drug you saw. I suppose it's one way to clear out the population that feel that the advertisement is better than their doctor. I can understand flu, headache, paracetamol etc.. tablets but not medications that need prescribed by a doctor.
How do doctors currently receive communication on medications and new practises/treatments? I assume through a system at their medical practice.
Great strawman! That's *exactly* what I argued, that an advertisement is better than the doctor's advice and that doctors are far too stupid and weak to address these concerns with their patients if their patients are using an ad. Of course, I have to scratch my head and wonder how you arrive at the double-think that doctors cannot cope with advertisements, yet are knowledgeable enough to know every single possible drug their patients might benefit from given condition they have. Let's say that you are like me. You have RLS (Restless Leg Syndrome). It's a relatively minor condition, not in the least threatening to much except sleep or airplane rides. It's a condition that I've had all of my life and it's one that is been largely ignored by most of the medical profession. In fact, I was unaware, until my 20's, that it even was a condition, so I never mentioned it to a doctor. An ad comes on, it says "do your legs do this thing at night or when confined? Tell your doctor about Restlessin." or something like that. So I ask my doctor about it. He says "Huh, haven't heard of that. To tell you the truth, I don't know much about restless leg syndrome, it's something there's only been a bit of literature on. I'll check it out and let you know if it's right for you." I don't think a doctor would simply say "here's the drug, hope it works for you!". They'd want to know the exact symptoms and determine if the problem for me were real. There are all kinds of new things coming on the market. People deserve to be informed. That doesn't mean that advertisements are better than doctors, it means they get some information they can then meet their doctor with. Why do you believe that patients should be uninformed? If they can't be trusted with that, why can they be trusted with political information?
That's a huge assumption. The answer is, they usually do a certain amount of continuing education. In California, it's 25 hours per year. Some of that must be directed at pain management, and some must be directed at their specialty, if they have one. Specialists will generally be more aware of new options in their field, but that's not a given. What they learn will be up to the instructor whose program is certified by the board. That program is likely not to have every single new advancement in medicine, even in a specialty field. Maybe can weigh in on this.
There's a terrible problem with pharmaceutical salesmen. I read there were 5 times more pharmaceutical salesmen than there are primary care physicians, an almost unbelievable fact. Not uncommon for doctors to get kickbacks (either directly or indirectly) for prescribing certain things or certain brands, which is plagued with questionable ethical issues. I know of one doctor that gets invited out to lunch (nice restaurants) about two times a week by representatives trying to push their products. (The patients are the ones paying for these products, not the doctor)