Obama Care Could Be Deadly

[quote name='perdition(troy']Why even have it in the bill if its not going to be enforced. It makes no sense to have a vague law thrown in there if it will never be enforced unless you a "serious" offender (or w/e your argument was).[/QUOTE]

Replying to your false premise: Deterrence?

Replying if you had any grounding in reality that would be the difference between the law being "enforced"
and the scare tactic of "ZOMG THEY ARE GOING TO THROW PEOPLE IN JAIL".
 
[quote name='Msut77']Just to give you a little lesson in logic perdition(troll.

If you don't know any Portuguese people that doesn't mean Portugal doesn't exist.[/QUOTE]

Does that mean your coworker's insurance decided to pay or is she just going to drag that bill to the grave?
 
I'm totally seeing it as a scare tactic.

Failure to pay the fine can constitute “felony willful evasion” which is punishable by a $250,000 fine and up to five years in prison.

I'm reading so far into that when I read it and think that you could be punished with up to five years in prison. I mean, I don't think that is even what they are trying to say there. It's like I'm completely twisting what it says when I tell people I don't like a provision in a bill that says you can be punished with up to five years in prison.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Does that mean your coworker's insurance decided to pay or is she just going to drag that bill to the grave?[/QUOTE]

She is still teetering on the edge last I checked.

She doesn't like to talk about it, which makes me wonder how many people "I know" I just don't know about.
 
[quote name='dopa345']Well, the government is now starting to say that we don't need to screen for breast cancer as much as we do currently. This is a U.S. government task force, not a medical society such as the American Cancer Society (which by the way disputes this claim). Kind of interesting timing, with nationalized health care becoming closer to reality. The government is already looking at ways to further cut costs at the expense of quality of preventative care, which is exactly the wrong way to approach curtailing health care costs in the long run.[/QUOTE]

Ugh, I think we've been through this issue already on this thread. Sometimes (more often than not in fact) preventative care is more costly overall than treating the illness it prevents, since you have to test/evaluate so many people (at a cost) for each that you find needed preventing. So what this task force found is that money would be saved overall by doing less mammograms, or waiting to do them later in life. Of course, saving money is not the only factor involved in health-care decisions...but it may be if those decisions are controlled by bureaucrats.
 
ABC News' Jonathan Karl reports:

What does it take to get a wavering senator to vote for health care reform?

Here’s a case study.

On page 432 of the Reid bill, there is a section increasing federal Medicaid subsidies for “certain states recovering from a major disaster.”

The section spends two pages defining which “states” would qualify, saying, among other things, that it would be states that “during the preceding 7 fiscal years” have been declared a “major disaster area.”

I am told the section applies to exactly one state: Louisiana, the home of moderate Democrat Mary Landrieu, who has been playing hard to get on the health care bill.

In other words, the bill spends two pages describing would could be written with a single world: Louisiana. (This may also help explain why the bill is long.)

Senator Harry Reid, who drafted the bill, cannot pass it without the support of Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu.

How much does it cost? According to the Congressional Budget Office: $100 million.

Here’s the incredibly complicated language:

SEC. 2006. SPECIAL ADJUSTMENT TO FMAP DETERMINATION FOR CERTAIN STATES RECOVERING FROM A MAJOR DISASTER.

Section 1905 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d), as amended by sections 2001(a)(3) and
2001(b)(2), is amended— (1) in subsection (b), in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘subsection (y)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsections (y) and (aa)’’; and (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

‘‘(aa)(1) Notwithstanding subsection (b), beginning January 1, 2011, the Federal medical assistance percentage for a fiscal year for a disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State shall be equal to the following:
‘(A) In the case of the first fiscal year (or part of a fiscal year) for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), increased by 50 percent of the number of percentage points by which the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year after the application of only subsection (a) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5 (if applicable to the preceding fiscal year) and without regard to this subsection, subsection (y), and subsections (b) and (c) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5.

‘‘(B) In the case of the second or any succeeding fiscal year for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection for the State, increased by 25 percent of the number of percentage points by which the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection.

‘‘(2) In this subsection, the term ‘disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State’ means a State that is one of
the 50 States or the District of Columbia, for which, at any time during the preceding 7 fiscal years, the President has declared a major disaster under section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act and determined as a result of such disaster that every county or parish in the State warrant individual and public assistance or public assistance from the Federal Government under such Act and for which— ‘‘(A) in the case of the first fiscal year (or part of a fiscal year) for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year after the application of only subsection (a) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5 (if applicable to the preceding fiscal year) and without regard to this subsection, subsection (y), and subsections (b) and (c) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5, by at least 3 percentage points; and ‘‘(B) in the case of the second or any succeeding fiscal year for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection by at least 3 percentage points.

‘‘(3) The Federal medical assistance percentage determined for a disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State under paragraph (1) shall apply for purposes of this title (other than with respect to disproportionate share hospital payments described in section 1923 and payments under this title that are based on the enhanced FMAP described in 2105(b)) and shall not apply with respect to payments under title IV (other than under part E of title IV) or payments under title XXI.’’
Click to expand...

nice
 
[quote name='speedracer']The Senate bill doesn't cover abortion. I wonder why not. It's not like that's going to make a difference on the vote, is it?[/QUOTE]

It sure made a huge difference in the House. You think the Senate will be different?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']It sure made a huge difference in the House. You think the Senate will be different?[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure to be honest.
[quote name='thrustbucket']Haha, they are now inserting bribes into the bill for the votes they need?[/quote]
Nothing new there. Shit, $100m is probably cheap by Senate standards.
Next years election is going to be pretty interesting....
Click to expand...
Not in LA it isn't. This will be a boon for her personally. LA is one of the few states I've seen where its voters actually goes out of their way to reward scumbaggery.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Haha, they are now inserting bribes into the bill for the votes they need?

Next years election is going to be pretty interesting....[/QUOTE]

Wait, do you really think this is a new thing? I sure didn't take you for someone quite that naive.
 
[quote name='Msut77']http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/19/re...-care-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html[/QUOTE]

Perfect article about how both parties have become downright deluded in their spending. They keep throwing this money around like its nothing and I'm fucking sick of it. Taxes are going up all over the place, sales tax, income tax, and now we're on the verge of healthcare taxes too?!?!? I'm so fucking fed up with all this spend, spend, spend mentality that nearly EVERY politician, republican AND democrat has participated in.

I work hard for my money, not so the government can stick their hand in my pocket for whatever pet project they decide they wanna be remembered for.
 
[quote name='Msut77']If you are going to take any lesson from that article a "pox on both their houses" wouldn't be it.[/QUOTE]

I took out of the article exactly what I posted. Enough fucking waste and spending.

Please, why don't you tell me what I'm supposed to think then...
 
Looking at this:
Just to be clear, the Medicare drug benefit was a pure giveaway with a gross cost greater than either the House or Senate health reform bills how being considered. Together the new bills would cost roughly $900 billion over the next 10 years, while Medicare Part D will cost $1 trillion.

Moreover, there is a critical distinction--the drug benefit had no dedicated financing, no offsets and no revenue-raisers; 100% of the cost simply added to the federal budget deficit, whereas the health reform measures now being debated will be paid for with a combination of spending cuts and tax increases, adding nothing to the deficit over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. (See here for the Senate bill estimate and here for the House bill.)
Click to expand...

And if the previous post is the entirety of what you make of it...

It makes one doubt you read the damn thing or reminds me of the old joke about how Apes can read philosophy, they just don't understand it.
 
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/23/the_assault_on_the_young_contd_99244.html

Nice article on how the young are already screwed by the old through government, and how the health-care bill will make things worse.

I don't usually see anything msut posts, but I did look at that Forbes article since you quoted it RVB. Although they are accurate about Republican shenanigans for Medicare Part D, the article is also misleading in that it says Part D is more expensive than the current health-care bills.

It is, but only if you believe the fantasy accounting going on in the bills currently in Congress. The most obvious and total bullshit trick is that they leave out of the accounting the first three years for expenses (because they delay it taking effect for three years) while counting the tax increases for the first three years. Since the estimates only go out 10 years, they get 10 years of tax increases and just 7 years of increased expenses, allowing them to claim that they are even reducing the deficit when that's a huge lie.

The current proposals are just as irresponsible and damaging to our country as the Medicare Part D crap pushed through mainly by Republicans in 2003. They should be defeated and Medicare Part D repealed. We need to reverse the travesty of the well-off elderly fleecing the young who are living paycheck to paycheck without insurance or savings or homeownership. AARP's motto should be "greed is good."
 
What? 50 billion dollars (with only 30% of that not bringing any benefit according to that piece) a year is an issue when our monthly trade deficit just about matches that? Sorry, can't take that seriously.

I talked earlier about the junk in our food, and the problems that has brought and will continue to bring (and how those issues won't change with nationalized coverage or a possible public option). You jumped to assume that I was talking about everyone eating fast food; I was referencing all of the crap that is in "actual" food and beverage products, as well as the garbage that lines our grocery stores and advertisements. For all of the wasteful things that go on in government and all of the cost-increasing practices that are present in our current healthcare system, to focus on 15 billion a year spent on end of life care that is wasted is extremely disingenuous, and pretty offensive.

Let's cut our foreign policy spending by at least 50%, let's find out whatever happened to the 2.3 trillion that was missing (and why it went missing) from the Pentagon on 9-10-2001, and let's not destroy 95% of the value of our currency, let's not give trillions in bailouts to Wall Street fucktards, then promote the leaders of those institutions to run our Treasury, let's not promote the morons who were asleep at the wheel when the banking system ran 40 to 1 loan to reserve policies to run our Treasury. Then let's reform a tangled mess of a healthcare system. 15 billion a year? That's almost as stupid as Republicans crying about earmark bills in the millions of dollars.

We have issues that may eventually bring about economic and social collapse, and we have retards like Glenn Beck crying about Acorn, SEIU, etc and the millions it gets from federal handouts, and the other side is worried about what is effectively peanuts spent on end of life care. Unbelievable.

ADD-ON:

All of this aside, it's bizarre to watch Republicans respond to the largely Democratic reform push with "THEY'RE KILLING GRANDMA, OMG WHAT ARE THEY DOING" rather than bring up... well, anything substantial.

Msut, my post isn't aimed at you, specifically. Aside from the tidbit about food.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Republicans love to get their hands on the Democrats' health care legislation. They show it to the cameras at every opportunity, even piling one version on top of another to make a big pile look even bigger.

Although they complain they don't have time to read all of it, they found the time to tape it together, page by page, so they could roll it up the steps of the Capitol like super-sized toilet paper and show how very long it is.
Click to expand...
haha. Snarky ass AP writers.
 
The CEO of the largest health care system in Indiana is on the record saying that we NEED a public option. So far, it's doctors, hospitals, and health care workers that are mostly on board. Looks like we just have right wingers and insurance companies that are blocking this legislation.
 
What's stopping doctors, hospitals and health care workers from providing free health care whenever they want?

Oh, wait... they want to get paid.
 
Yep.

Health care has become just a big business people get into to make big bucks just like banking, business etc., moreso than because of a desire to help others. Further promoted by the huge student loans required to get a med degree which pushes doctors to move away from much needed primary care to the shorter ours and bigger bucks of specialist positions.

It's just a bad system. People can get Ph D's while largely getting paid to go to school (I got paid plus paid tuition 6 of my 7 years of grad school for my master's and Ph D), but we require people who want to be doctors to go $150K in debt?

If health care costs are going to go down, the whole climate and culture needs to change. Starting by dealing with the student loan problem---maybe excuse them if they work 10 years in primary care. Much like many places excuse student loans for teachers who stay in public schools.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']What's stopping doctors, hospitals and health care workers from providing free health care whenever they want?

Oh, wait... they want to get paid.[/QUOTE]

What's wrong with getting paid? I thought you right wingers were all about that moolah.

Faux News sucks and conservatives think illegals are literally vampires that suck the life blood out of America.
 
[quote name='depascal22']What's wrong with getting paid? I thought you right wingers were all about that moolah.

Faux News sucks and conservatives think illegals are literally vampires that suck the life blood out of America.[/QUOTE]

There's nothing wrong with wanting to get paid...

...until you want that pay to be forced from other individuals by gunpoint.

Am I the only one who remembers all the negative hooplah in regards to the Federal Government giving out taxpayer funds to private corporations earlier this year?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']What's stopping doctors, hospitals and health care workers from providing free health care whenever they want?

Oh, wait... they want to get paid.[/QUOTE]

There is no system I know of where health care professionals don't get paid Bob.

For some reason you think your latest non sequitur is a justification for insurance companies to exist for no other reason than to look for as much profit as possible costing us all extra and denying people care.
 
I'm glad depascal hasn't let me down with his average of one mention per page of illegal immigration and a wild stab at his shaky understanding of those opposed to it.
 
I understand why people are against it. They're the same people that sit there and tell me a joint is wrong because it's illegal. You guys blast the government for damn near everything but stick to laws that are outdated and antiquated.

Illegal immigrants haven't caused this country's health care system to go bankrupt yet but conservatives want us all to believe it has.

Oh, and Faux News sucks donkey nuts.
 
[quote name='depascal22']I understand why people are against it. They're the same people that sit there and tell me a joint is wrong because it's illegal. You guys blast the government for damn near everything but stick to laws that are outdated and antiquated.

Illegal immigrants haven't caused this country's health care system to go bankrupt yet but conservatives want us all to believe it has.

Oh, and Faux News sucks donkey nuts.[/QUOTE]

:wall:
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yep.
If health care costs are going to go down, the whole climate and culture needs to change. Starting by dealing with the student loan problem---maybe excuse them if they work 10 years in primary care. Much like many places excuse student loans for teachers who stay in public schools.[/QUOTE]

There are already substantial incentives for doctors to enter primary care that are better than your proposed indentured servitude of 10 years (dedicated primary care loans at low rates, loan forgiveness for providing care in an underserved area etc.) yet many still choose not to. The reason is that our current compensation model completely shafts primary care doctors. Primary care is reimbursed far less than it should because payers, particularly the government, place very little value in preventative medicine which is a very short-sighted approach. Thus they won't cover the annual physical that could detect the hypertension or high cholesterol early on. However, when that hypertension or high cholesterol becomes a full blown stroke, then the government is fine for paying those costs, even though they easily could have been prevented with early diagnosis and treatment.

The sad but inevitable consequence is that for future physicians, the financial component is a major, if not the main factor when selecting their specialty. After all, regardless of what field you go into, you still had to take out the same $150-200K loan. Thus the most competitive specialties attracting the best and brightest medical graduates end up being fields like Dermatology, Plastic surgery and Radiology while primary care and pediatrics ends up being filled by the "less than stellar" grads. Primary care physicians ideally should be our best doctors, able to diagnose and recognize a wide variety of disease but in our current system, primary care physicians tend to be the "less competitive" graduates viewed with less prestige compared with other specialties. It really shouldn't be this way but it is.

There needs to a complete philosophical reversal on what we value in delivering medical care. The problem is not simply an issue of redistribution of money.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']:wall:[/QUOTE]

Quit acting like that. I've asked what everyone's problem is with illegal immigration and the only answer I got was that it's illegal and that illegals drain our services.

I've countered with the argument that there are so many illegal activities that "normal" Americans partake in that it's not really a good argument.

We also know that it's a decent thing to educate illegals and they work as hard or even harder than "citizens".

I can also tell you that illegals don't use our healthcare system as much as uninsured "citizens". I'd say the bigger drain on the system are under or un employed "citizens" that expect everything to be done for them but hey I don't have any experience with the real world so I'll just go back to the other forums.

Faux News is like Jesus, Rush Limbaugh, and Ed Murrow all rolled into one tasty treat.
 
[quote name='depascal22']I understand why people are against it. They're the same people that sit there and tell me a joint is wrong because it's illegal. You guys blast the government for damn near everything but stick to laws that are outdated and antiquated.

Illegal immigrants haven't caused this country's health care system to go bankrupt yet but conservatives want us all to believe it has.

Oh, and Faux News sucks donkey nuts.[/QUOTE]

Actually, as I've said before, I'm against repealing virtually all drug laws as I really don't care what someone does to their own body. Smoke all the joints you want - I couldn't care less.

As for illegal immigration - if we moved to a consumption-based tax system instead of an income-based system, I wouldn't care one bit about it either.
 
[quote name='dopa345'] *snip*

There needs to a complete philosophical reversal on what we value in delivering medical care. The problem is not simply an issue of redistribution of money.[/QUOTE]

I agree with all of that. I just think the whole medical system is fucked up. It shouldn't be something people get into to make big bucks first, with helping others being at best a secondary motive.

I just mentioned the loans as that's something that drives many doctors who do care away from the lower paying primary care positions. I agree a part of the problem is that the specialist positions get paid so much more--but it's all overpaid IMO.

But there's no way to change it now with the way our culture is. Not enough people willing to put in the schooling if their aren't big bucks attached. Something that irks me since I did 11 1/2 years of college and grad school to take a job that I enjoy and find important that will never make big bucks relative to the time it took to qualify for the job or the amount of hours worked during the year.

Just a personal bias on my part, of not having much respect for people who's main concern is money. I think the quality of care would be much better if the majority of doctors where in it to make a difference rather than to make a fat paycheck, but there aren't enough of those types to go around. So we're stuck with over priced bills, doctors hawking more expensive tests and procedures than needed, and running from one patient to the next as quickly as possible to maximize profits. But lower pay and you'd have fewer people interested in the field so we're pretty much stuck with it.

So yeah, putting more emphasis on preventative care would be one way to help fix things somewhat for sure. But with no public option (or better yet, nationalized insurance fully), you can be sure insurance companies will all raise premiums to cover the extra claims for physicals etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']I think the quality of care would be much better if the majority of doctors where in it to make a difference rather than to make a fat paycheck, but there aren't enough of those types to go around.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. You're not going to get better care because you're not going to find enough people who are A.) Talented enough and B.) Willing to donate the time.

As much as I keep reading those who lament the idea that the health care industry is an industry, I don't think they fully understand the consequences of it being anything else.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']
As much as I keep reading those who lament the idea that the health care industry is an industry, I don't think they fully understand the consequences of it being anything else in today's society/culture.[/QUOTE]

Added the bold to make it a statement I fully agree with.

It doesn't have to be that way theoretically, but there's not much hope for it changing in todays society/culture unfortunately.

It's a shame the health care industry couldn't work more like academia where us professors are working more hours for less pay than people in the private sectors of our field in most cases, because we enjoy our fields and believe in the importance of our work and thus value research freedom and the chance to pass our knowledge to others more than getting a big payday.

Despite the longer hours and relatively low pay, there have been large advances in knowledge in nearly every field as a result of research conducted by academics. Much of it knowledge that could only be generated that way as there's no profit (i.e. a marketable, saleable product) that comes out of most of it--thus the private sector wouldn't invest the time into it.

The health care industry could do a much better job if more doctors were doing it out of love and passion for the job and belief in its importance first, and money second in a similar fashion to academics who eschew bigger paychecks for the freedom to focus on their research agendas without the pressure of making a company a profit.
 
The health care industry does have academia. Problem is that you can't teach clinical experience in a classroom so you have teaching hospitals. They're places that are crawling with interns, residents, and nursing students.

The attending surgeons get paid less by their patients but make more from the university/hospital for their teaching expertise. The hours are longer because surgeries take longer because everyone is slower.

It takes longer for anesthesia residents to start lines, it takes longer for nursing students to properly interview patients, and it takes longer for residents to perform simple surgical procedures because everyone is learning. I'd say surgeries take around 30% in a teaching environment.
 
dmaul:

We could leave Doctors salaries relatively unscathed if we were to get a handle on the amount drug and insurance companies skim off the top.

As it is right now something has got to give.

This is a longer version of something I posted a while ago.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/IFHP Comparative Price Report with AHA data addition.pdf

Now correct if I am wrong but those other countries have doctors as near as I can tell, they must be in it for the prestige.

This isn't directed at you but ever notice how those screeching most about the deficit are also those dead set against a system that would reign in costs?
 
Funny how much they screech about health care reform but they willfully and gleefully allowed billions to go to the "War on Terror."

I think conservatives are just gonna have to take whatever happens at this point. They've been nothing but obstructive to any reform that would truly help anyone.

Are there any good conservative plans out there that cover a significant amount of Americans that aren't under the current system? Anything? I'm tired of hearing how this way isn't going to work when they don't have anything to contribute.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Funny how much they screech about health care reform but they willfully and gleefully allowed billions to go to the "War on Terror."[/quote]

It is trillions by now, but yeah. Only Democrats ever have to pay for anything.

I think conservatives are just gonna have to take whatever happens at this point. They've been nothing but obstructive to any reform that would truly help anyone.
Click to expand...

I posted this before but it was so nice it needs to be posted twice:

http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/19/re...-care-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html

Are there any good conservative plans out there that cover a significant amount of Americans that aren't under the current system? Anything? I'm tired of hearing how this way isn't going to work when they don't have anything to contribute.
Click to expand...

The Republicans came out with a plan, it cost more and helped less people but who am I to be a pedant?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/congressional_budget_office_th.html
 
[quote name='depascal22']The health care industry does have academia. Problem is that you can't teach clinical experience in a classroom so you have teaching hospitals. They're places that are crawling with interns, residents, and nursing students.

The attending surgeons get paid less by their patients but make more from the university/hospital for their teaching expertise. The hours are longer because surgeries take longer because everyone is slower.

It takes longer for anesthesia residents to start lines, it takes longer for nursing students to properly interview patients, and it takes longer for residents to perform simple surgical procedures because everyone is learning. I'd say surgeries take around 30% in a teaching environment.[/QUOTE]

Oh I know. But the difference is most MDs are going to bolt from those teaching hospitals as soon as they are able (after their residency etc.) for private practice, specialist positions etc.

Where as most Ph Ds stay in academia vs. taking private jobs in most fields. Just a totally different goal orientation. Most people go to medical school with dreams of a high paying job. Most people get Ph Ds as they're interested in the topic as it's a silly time investment if money is your main focus.



[quote name='Msut77']dmaul:

We could leave Doctors salaries relatively unscathed if we were to get a handle on the amount drug and insurance companies skim off the top.

As it is right now something has got to give.
[/QUOTE]

Agreed doctors wages are only one small part of the cost problem. Insurance being a for profit industry, rather than a non-profit service industry is a bigger culprit as that drives costs up crazily--as evidenced by the different charges for the same procedures in different states (or even different areas in the same state).

As is the crazy prices of pharmaceuticals. More drug research should be done in university settings where people's goals are to find cures and publish articles to get tenure, not make a drug that well sell and make their company billions and get them fat bonuses.
 
I wasn't trying to insult your intelligence, dmaul. I'm just explaining the process to some of the other people that will come in here and start blowing things up because we're not talking about keeping taxes low and guvmint out of our wallets.

The pharmaceutical industry isn't nearly as bad as the insurance industry though. At least the profits go towards the next drug in the pipeline. So many drugs fail that you need to have a high reward system set up for companies. If you set limits on drug prices, it will stifle innovation in the field.

I'd say the pharmaceutical industry is another sort of academia for doctors. They're not treating the masses but thinking up of new ways to get things done. It's very cerebral and not that rewarding unless you're the lucky guy that comes up with the cure for cancer. Problem is, the unit chief/department head will take all the credit and the Nobel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top