WORDS which I put in CAPS

The freemarket makes sure that curse are developed because you can make money from it.

UHC ftw

>>1822747
except when drug companies pay them off to not develop a cure

>>1822747
You're apparently not in business.

The way all of industry works right now has no push to CURE anything.

From
our reliance on oil
to our need to replace razorblades

FACT: For-profit business structure isn't actually all that good for improving the quality of life.

>>1822747
except you can make more money by just keeping them "almost healthy" and keeping them dependent on the medicine you provide them.

That way you obtain more profit and a steady flow of income.

your own logic is working against you.

For faggots tl;dr: healthcare run by corporations sucks, governmental healthcare works better when done correctly - see most of EU

our society is sick and is set up to keep people in as unhealthy a state (in mind and body) as possible while still being able to function so that you can be put up on the auction block

>FACT: For-profit business structure isn't actually all that good for improving the quality of life.

You don't say

Do you fucking morons think the reason new cures aren't coming out as much is because of fucking capitalism? You think these companies are going to voluntarily compete with each other with bullshit drugs instead of trying to one up each other by creating a cure.

Btw who care what the government "wants" in the end it's going to be run by corrupt assholes who couldn't care any less..

>>1822774

>mfw when our modern society is fucking amazing

:|

Okaythen..

>>1822806
> You think these companies are going to voluntarily compete with each other with bullshit drugs instead of trying to one up each other by creating a cure.

Yep. Why would anyone challenge the status quo? Profits are huge right now, for just about any market organisation that matters. And natural market barriers prevent any real competition appearing.

>>1822806
>implying it's not a cartel

Copypasta from another thread:

The swedish healthcare system:

You get sick
You call the socialist hospital
5 days for a doctor to see you, he wants you to see a specialist - 30 days waiting
he takes some samples (1 week)
He makes the desiontion you need treatment (90 days)
total 132 days

This is the time goal set by swedish politicans and they are not held, surgery can be YEARS

Needles to say people die because of this

>>1822806
What's more likely to happen?
>Sell greasy, unhealthy, nutritionless food
>people become fat and diabetic
>Sell medicine to diabetic people for the rest of their lives. Medicine is protected by patent so they can "profit" from monopoly for next 10 years.
or
>promote healthy lifestyles supported by medicine and prevent diabetes

>>1822833
Copypasta from all over the place.

Meanwhile, they have better mortality rates, longer life expectancies, and beat the US system in nearly every category for vastly less cost.

>>1822817
>natural market barriers
If by natural, you mean governmental constrains shaped for big companies that shit all over eventual new businesses.

>>1822833

American Healthcare System:

I AM SICK, I go to the ER and get looked at, the Doctor gives me medicine and I go home. Unless I have coverage that comes out of MY pocket. Have you see the Price of blood pressure meds these days? Its not something everyone can afford if they have a life long battle with hypertension.

Your system sounds like heaven compared to struggling to pay in a fixed income

>>1822849

Profits, not results. Don't you understand American medicine?

>>1822817
>natural market barriers prevent any real competition
>regulation prevent any real competition

fxed

>>1822849
Oh look, another one:

A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very interesting
statistics from a survey by the United NationsInternational Health
Organization.

Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:
U.S. 65%
England 46%
Canada 42%
Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:
U.S. 93%
England 15%
Canada 43%
Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:
U.S. 90%
England 15%
Canada 43%
Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:
U.S. 77%
England 40%
Canada 43%
Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:
U.S. 71
England 14
Canada 18
Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in "excellent health":
U.S. 12%
England 2%
Canada 6%

Fuck yeah free health care

>>1822809
What makes modern society amazing, I ask?

Steady technological innovation through the progress and teaching of SCIENCE. NOT the system of exploitation driven by profit called capitalism.

Bullshit on all of this. If someone developed a cure for cancer they could sell that shit for major bucks. Your logic in the no profit in curing is stupid. If keeping you live on kemo and other drugs cost 100k they could put out a cancer cure pill was put out for 250K and still make a profit.

>>1822735
That's one theory I must say is uninformed and the reverse of what you say is true.

>>1822866
The system/profit motive makes this possible.

>>1822869

Are you going to make more money making a car that doesn't break down or fixing the cars that do break down?

Its a matter of numbers and the numbers for TREATMENT beat the Numbers for curing the disease.

>>1822851

Those exist as well, though to a much smaller extent. The largest barrier is perpetrated through the free market itself. To enter the insurance industry, one needs a tremendous amount of capital. All the people who have the capital will see no reason to invest in a new form of insurance when the current industry is so incredibly profitable. Nobody will challenge the status quo.

Thus the free market itself is responsible for stifling competition.

Look, there is room for your position, but in light of this type of action-
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/FDAinDrugTrial.php

especially given that it's hardly unique, but rather the established standard for profit-driven actions, well, Im afraid the scales tip against your position.

>>1822864
>England
>Canada

ALL FREE HEALTHCARE MUST SUCK BECAUSE OF THESE TWO EXAMPLES!

>>1822864
>doesn't account for how many people are actually screened or tested

LESS people get routinely tested for medical conditions in the US than places of government controlled healthcare. More people DIE to cancer in the US without ANY treatment due to late or no diagnosis. More people are diagnosed in the first place in the UK and Canada, which skews the numbers.

fuck, was addressing
>>1822806
this anon in post above, but Im assuming it applies to many other anons posting as well.

>>1822888
Wrong. It always comes down to the goodwill of individuals.

>>1822894
that's only true when competition isn't allowed to flourish

please see US v. Jap auto manufacturing industry

Vioxx is all you need, nevermind that it's almost identical to Aleve but has more lethal side effects. Aleve's too old to patent so had to be replaced.

Prilosec, Nexium, and whatever else are the same, as one patent ends, a "new" drug comes out with the associated high prices to recoup R&D.

I'm gonna stop bitching and just buy more Abbot Labs stock, they make fuck you amounts of cash.

>>1822901
Absolute numbers mean shit here.

You know this to be true.

>>1822896
insurance needs great capital because it is heavily regulated

besides I thought we were talking about health care and not insurance

OP, you're gesture although seemingly logical would be utterly flawed in a monetary system. In the monetary system, the government acts as a private industry and recieves loans from the federal reserve, so the government's incentives immediately shift from the people's interest, to paying interest back to the banks. It's how it is now, and how it would be if they got even more power, sorry.

>>1822949

Just more reason that our form of Government is flawed and needs to be changed to something more flexible

>>1822866
well said

>>1822849
Well I'll tell you why

America has a lot of issues that aren't necessarily related at all to it's healthcare system.

First off we have many hispanics and niggers, those things heavily skew the numbers..

Also obesity, healthcare can't fix that shit, we're a bunch of fat fucks, blame the subsidies.

And a bunch of other shit

>>1822969
Too bad none of that would be possible without capitalism so yeah both of you tard think everything exists in a fucking vacuum.

>>1822979
Universities tend to have the latest treatments, they're not exactly bastions of capitalism, they don't have near the army of administrators most hospitals do.

>>1822979
>smart people made good innovations and progress and benefit to society because they were motivated to make a buck!

magic free-market fairyland thinking!! Meanwhile:
>>1822925
>>1822925

>>1822998

Waitwaitwait

Universities and their success is a product of the free market system.

>ITT:

>People think you can "cure" cancer so easily..
>Don't understand how many of our viruses work today.

Take a biology course you fucking morons

>>1822931
>insurance needs great capital because it is heavily regulated

Well that's certainly false. Insurance requires great capital because it's based on exchanging millions if not billions of dollars worth of insurance every year. Government regulation has little or nothing to do with it. Stop drinking the libertarian Kool-aid.

>>1822979
> both of you tard think

Um... ok. Whatever, let that slide.
I don't get it, are the arguments going over your head or something?
It's not as tho we're refudiating (lol) the achievements of capitalism, we're just also fully taking note of it's negative impacts and implications on a global scale.
They don't balance out.
...Its kinda like the kid with a piss-drunk all day err-day stepfather who beats the fuck out of him, sure, got him a 360 for xmas, and the kid may grow up strong because of it all, but the dad's still an asshole.
(ok, it's not so much like that, but I found the comparison amusing)

>>1823025
They live on research grants more than corporate mentalities.

If they were corporate run, you'd need a license to use any techniques they came up with and patented. You'd probably need to pay someone to use CPR.

>>1823071
Your mixing up what problems capitalism causes rather than governments.

You think corporations just go into countries and kill leaders that are planning to nationalize resources?

No our fucking retarded government does that.

>>1823073
HOLY SHIT

You think red-tape is due to corporations AND NOT FUCKING GOVERNMENT?

American Medicine is about as ethical as slavery at this point. You're all a bunch of profit vectors for quants that work at insurance companies.

Personally, I hope they kill as many of you as possible, because you allowed this to happen. You're a table of undesirable human beings.

>>1823088
>No our fucking retarded government does that.

On behalf of the corporations. So what's the difference?

>>1823093
Patent trolling is enabled by the government, but it's a for-profit game companies engage in.

>>1823102
WAT

THAT'S BECAUSE WE GIVE GOVERNMENT TOO MUCH FUCKING POWER

YOU THINK IF WE MAKE OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT STRONGER IT'S GOING TO BE FILLED WITH NON-CORRUPT PEOPLE (THEY DON'T EXIST).

THAT'S WHY LESS GOVERNMENT IS GOOD

>>1823137
and the solution to this would obviously be more government correct?

>>1823102
Precisely.
It's such a closely knit system there's very little discernible difference anymore for all practical considerations.

>>1823138
You don't seem to be able to make the connection.
If it didn't already exist, the for-profit corporations would MAKE IT EXIST. Just like how they're responsible for it's current operation in the first place.

>>1823138

It's not because we give the Government too much power. It's because we allow corporations to buy our elections and undermine our democracy. A powerful government is fine, as long as it's democratic. Currently, our system is not democratic, because it's heavily influenced, if not entirely controlled in some places, by the very corporations it should be protecting us from.

The step forward isn't to limit the role of government in our society, it's to limit the role of corporatism in our government.

>>1823196
Which isn't fucking possible

are all of you 18 year old morons, are you really all fucking idiots?

who are you people and why are you so dumb?

>>1823202

Actually it's very much possible. Leftist non-profits have been pushing relentlessly for this for years. In oregon, voting is now mail in. In some cities around America, elections are slowly becoming 100% publicly funded. The progress is slow, but the will of the people is being heard in the end.

You only stand in the way of progress by asserting the hopelessness of our situation.

>>1823202
Sure it is.
It always comes down to the goodwill of people.
Of course you'll never see good will coming from the corporations as long as we keep lauding for-profit capitalism as the greatest fucking thing on the planet.

>>1823218
>throwing a crybaby tantrum
>presenting no real arguments
>asserting that everyone who disagrees with him is young and ignorant

Oh, hello there conservative.

>>1823218
mostly lack of experience, I hope

as to why they feel they should open their mouths to talk about such things...sense of entitlement, insecurity, boredom

If the pharmaceutical industry was dominated by one company, I might consider this conspiracy-theory viable. However, the companies do have considerable pricing power over cures as well.

Also, please consider the reality of this scenario: Company A has a product which is uset to treat a disease. If company B wants any revenue from the treatment of this disease, it has to start making a better, more potent treatment or even cure, than company A. This would also reduce A's market share, thus making B's competitive position stronger.

So, are you sure the free market won't fix it? I think that as long as the industry remains competitive it is going to work. I don't really think anyone wants to invest shitloads of time and money into developing a product (which may fail) unless there are considerable financial incentives.

>>1823248
The "free market" creates doctors being paid to push prescriptions that do worse than over-the-counter medicine, troll patents, misinformation and a motivation to maintain a profitable status quo.

Falling to a cliche of competitive pricing are for suckers who aren't thinking imaginatively enough. True capitalism is about innovation behind making your profit.

OP's post is stupid, the motivation to cure diseases is the fact that in a competitive industry another firm is going to cure the disease first. The analogy to car manufacturing is apt, when the auto industry was opened up to real competition the big US automakers were forced into making real innovations, rather than new aesthetic designs and so forth. Drivers have benefited greatly from the change. The healthcare industry needs a great deal more competition, and it needs an insurance industry/pool of consumers that's sufficiently motivated to drive prices down and keep quality up. The insurance industry is, as people have pointed out in this thread, a big problem in the (American) healthcare system, but their performance isn't subject to the effects the OP mentioned, and people seem to be forgetting this (the healthcare system of Canada, for example, has most services provided by private enterprises - it's the insurance system that's the main difference between Canadian and American healthcare).

>>1822735
>The way the medical industry works right now we have no real push to cure anything. We live in a country that doesn't see CURES they see to TREAT and help you TOLERATE your disease because theres no money in CURING anything.

Socialist countries are EXACTLY THE SAME.
The problem inevitably comes from SOMEONE ELSE paying for YOUR health care.

When you are paying for it, naturally you will look for the best.

>THE GOVERNMENT WANTS YOU HEALTHY,
looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ool

If you support more government interference in society, you support a slow crawl towards totalitarianism. And for that you deserve to be killed.
No arguments, no rationalization, no friendly tyranny. I'd rather see this PoS country burn to the ground.

I know OP is CONSERVATIVE because he CAPITALIZES random WORDS. I only see conservatives DO that.

>>1823291
Pharmaceutical commercials used to not be allowed, they had to go to the doctors and convince them to prescribe things.

Now they just market during American Idol and have people going to see their doctors with a shopping list of new drugs.

>>1823305
The government DOES want you healthy.
Healthy people work harder, so they generate more tax revenue.
Unhealthy people costs money AND reduces tax revenue.

>Company A has a product which is uset to treat a disease. If company B wants any revenue from the treatment of this disease, it has to start making a better, more potent treatment or even cure, than company A. This would also reduce A's market share, thus making B's competitive position stronger.

What happens is that company A gets a bunch of investment from medical companies. It later becomes very profitable. Company B can't get any funding for it's cure because there's already a treatment available and it's much more profitable than a cure.

Now company B might be able to produce a treatment that's cheaper to manufacture, and they'll win a competition war with company A. But an actual cure generally wont be developed because it interferes with everybody's profit margins. Everyone would rather invest in company A or a company making a product very similar to company A

>>1823323
Is that SO? Well I guess that IS good TO know.

>>1823315
Classic CASE of liberal denial.

>>1823323
>The government DOES want you healthy.
hahahaha
THIS IS WHAT LIBERALS ACTUALLY BELIEVE

DON'T WORRY FOLKS, I'M FROM THE GOVERNMENT, I'M HERE TO HELP!

I'm late to the thread, but OP, where is the government getting the money to give this health care to all of its citizens?
It's a simple question. I promise that there's no trick.

>>1823358
FROM THE EVIL RICH PEOPLE WHO HOARD THEIR MONEY IN BANKS!

>>1823354
>attempted mockery to hide lack of counterargument

don't let the logic in the truth shock you too much

>>1823358

Probably taxes

>>1823392
Only a lunatic would willingly put all their wealth in the hands of some third party on the vague "promise" that they will care for you throughout your life.

>>1823392
The farmer also takes care for his/hers pigs. They are healthy, but they are healthy for a given reason. While it's obvious that the government will not eat anyone (besides chinese organ harvesting schemes), but this is obviously an fascist mindset.

>>1823423

That's exactly what you do with insurance companies anyways.

>>1823428
The farmer takes care of his pigs because he OWNS THEM

Or do you think that the government OWNS you and has some inherent interest in helping you out?

>>1823442
If they forcefully perform medical procedures on me/punish me for not doing shit for my health, i could easly say that the state owns me.

>>1823329

I disagree, because if you look at the biggest pharmaceutical companies right now (for example Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZenaca, J&J) they are not really riding on 1 or 2 products. Also, there is not a single company which clearly dominates the whole market. Hence there probably won't be a major hindrance to develop a cure.

If you see a company in the pharma-industry considerably and permanently lowering their R&D-investment, now that is when the capital will start fleeing. Remember that new developments are patented and they do, usually, bring shitloads of revenue. Competing with older, "similar" products, is usually a business with lower margins.

>>1823437
Because there are a few companies that work as an oligopoly, we should create a monopoly?

Hilarious

>>1823398
Taxes was what I was expecting.

But here's the problem.

In economics, there are two motivating factors for everything: greed and risk.
These two motivators act perfectly in concert with each other: you take a personally acceptable amount of risk to get the salary/benefits that that amount of risk gives.
You take as much risk as you dare to obtain the maximum amount of utility you can get.

The problem comes when one of those factors gets removed.
Government giving "free" health care would be exactly that. You can get whatever treatment or test for whatever you want, and it's payed for by taxpayers (in a small sense, you as well, but many people don't think about that).
You've just taken away risk. You've destroyed the mitigating factor that made people shop around to find the best deal, and get only what they need. You've unleashed an army of 12-year-olds into an unsupervised candy shop.
I don't see this ending well.

I'd rather take the taxes that I'm paying for everyone's health care (including the people who don't take care of themselves, while I do take care of myself) and spend it on myself. I'm infinitely more efficient at spending my money to benefit myself than the government is, and I definitely don't want the government telling me what I should and shouldn't do with my money. Why? Because it's my money.

YES. There is a CLEAR benefit to being a government of a HEALTHY country. A HEALTHY country is a POWERFUL country with a LOT of Human RESOURCES.

FURTHERMORE there's the BENEFIT of the government having NO gain in being the middle man, unlike the FOR PROFIT insurance companies.

>>1823471
The margins just continue falling, until they end up like many antivenoms, no longer available because there's no money in producing them.

Coral snake antivenom's the next one about to go away, existing stocks are expiring and nobody bothers to make it. Florida sucks anyway.

>>1823502
There are several flaws in your reasoning.
You make the assumption that government actually gives a shit about the country!

When in reality, patriotism is a right wing thing, doesn't exist in leftist "utopia"s

In left wing countries, as can be seen all over the western world, government tends to be run by foreigners and traitors.

>>1823502
We have an excess of people in the US, it's still 13-14% of the population in several cities drawing unemployment, plus all of those not eligible but also not working.

Not enough labor jobs left for the population, and nobody's starting small businesses.

>>1823505
Don't antivenoms take the fun out of it though? A snakebite isn't always lethal, but without antivenom, it's more of a roll of the dice.

>>1823487
>implying you won't go broke just because the government didn't tax you for healthcare when you are diagnosed with a serious medical condition

there's a reason why everyone deals with healthcare /insurance/. Now which do you think is going to work out better for you, a for-profit third party middle man, or a pro-health third party regulator?

>>1823502

There's a huge benefit to having for-profit companies taking care of us.
If we don't like their products/service, we take our money to somebody who has good products/service.
Every for-profit organization is going to working like mad to get the best products/service possible to keep their market share high.
Working hard means new drugs that do new things, old things better, and better service and prices.
You're guaranteed that the companies will spend every bit they get from you efficiently to maximize profits and R&D.

>>1823553
A for-profit middleman, hands down.
They want my business, and if they want my business, they'll do a better and more efficient job than the "pro-health third party regulator."

>>1823554
scams and gaming the system, scams and gaming the system, scams and gaming the system are way better ways to get a leg-up when for-profit, rather than doing all the hard work of competing.

They don't need to compete in the market, they merely need to exploit you.

>>1823485

A democratic monopoly? Yes. we should.

>>1823471
>I disagree, because if you look at the biggest pharmaceutical companies right now (for example Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZenaca, J&J) they are not really riding on 1 or 2 products. Also, there is not a single company which clearly dominates the whole market. Hence there probably won't be a major hindrance to develop a cure.

I never said they were. I said that the vast majority of investment is going towards things that are more profitable, not more competitive. How much money is invested by these companies every year into cure as compared to treatments? How many treatments have these companies released in the last few years as compared to the cures they've released? If if we start with a liberal assumption that cures are significantly more costly to develop (why would they be?) the numbers will astound you. I highly suggest you do research into them. The empirical evidence supports what I have said.

>>1823487
>You've unleashed an army of 12-year-olds into an unsupervised candy shop. I don't see this ending well.

And yet it does in the rest of the civilized world. More so than the current system in America. That theory of greed and risk is false in my view. People are generally motivated to take care of their health for personal reasons, not financial reasons, even in our current highly financially based system. Money shouldn't factor into someones health decisions. If they feel sick, they should see a doctor. They shouldn't have to worry about the cost.

>>1823573
Apparently you haven't dealt with many insurers. Many want you to call some guy in a cubicle with no actual medical training to get things preauthorized.

I had an ambulance ride denied because I didn't call ahead. Nevermind that I was knocked the fuck out and didn't even realize I'd been in an ambulance.

>>1823573

If you've been paying attention at all to the current flaws in the health care system you'd recognize that that's not how it works at all.

>>1823554

>we take our money to somebody who has good products/service.

Except the worst problems of the health insurance industry are present in every major health insurance company. You can't go to someone else because everyone else has the same practices as the place you just left.

>>1823616
Because the GOVERNMENT steps in and does not allow competition + mandates coverage of a whole bunch of bullshit you don't want.

>>1823628
So they're limited in some regards, but the ones they can control they obviously don't give a fuck about anything but denying claims wherever possible.

>>1823628

Again, this is false. The government has little or nothing to do with it. The problem is that the power of investment is controlled by a few elite, who have no motivation to invest in a system that would provide a better service to it's customers.

but, but . . . socialism!

>>1823628
The GOVERNMENT is doing that because the PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES WANT IT THAT WAY
aka GAMING THE SYSTEM

>>1823654
Well duh, that's what government has ALWAYS been about. Back to anti-trust laws because competition wanted to ruin standard oil, and back before them with government granted monopolies and cartels and so on.