What would you pay to live 4 months longer? (2 Viewers)

[Supahnit]

If the drug is available, it should be made available to everyone. If this requires govt intervention, then fine - life liberty and pursuit of happiness.

But if the drug is only available to the very rich, this is just wrong. $$$ should not be the basis of life in America.

I disagree with the above statement. Along with the comment about free health care for all. As we all know, nothing is free. If we want free heath care for all, are we willing to deny doctors, surgeons, and scientists the ability to make a living? Do we apply a socialistic model to the health care field in which the profit motive is removed? The capitalist system has allowed incredible innovation and competition to drive costs down and make our standard of living one of the highest in the world. This could not have been accomplished under a socialistic system.

Is it frustrating that some medications are expensive?? of course. Would it be nice to have universal coverage for all and full access to drugs as soon as they are available?? sure. But that is not the way our system works. The pace of innovation in the medical and drug industries continue to increase and this is demonstrated by longer lifespans.. despite our poor diets.

Not to make this a political post, but the recent health law changes have corporations, small business owners, and wealthy taxpayers subsidizing the care for poor and elderly recipients. Many that work for corporations see only a fraction of the cost increases (as the corporations pay much of this difference). But ask any small business owner like myself and health care premiums have exploded over the past few years.

If a drug is only available to the very rich.. such as those of us that live in the US (where our standard of living is higher than most anywhere else in the world), should we make these drugs available to the poor in Europe... Africa? Where do we draw the line? Are we willing to increase our taxes to subsidize the R&D for these drugs (Oops.. we already have $19 trillion in debt and trillions more in promised future entitlements).

My $.02

 

[Supahnit]

I expect this will be a transient problem - ENIAC was the size of an average-sized house and cost $400,000 to build in the 1940s (equivalent to about $5m in 2015 dollars,) and did next to nothing by today's standards.

Today we have a drug proven to extend the life of terminal cancer patients, even if only marginally, and the cost is exorbitant (as one might expect) - how many billions have been invested in cancer research to this point, with virtually no marketable results before now??? In a few more years there will be a new version that can perhaps extend life for a year, and cost a bit less (but still well out of reach for most people.) Then 2 years, and so on, and so forth, and maybe 70 years from now, all that will be required is a $10 shot for newborns and all cancers will be a thing of the past.

In the meantime, governments will have no practical choice but to turn to full-on global socialism, because capitalism and the free market are all well and great until you reach the point where the "free market" decides who lives and who dies - the global chaos resulting from that would be staggering. Say we reach the point in 30 years where, if you get cancer, you can be cured completely for the low, low cost of $10 million - what would YOU do to get your hands on that $10 million? What if were for your wife, or your child? What levels of crimes would you commit to save their lives???

We're headed towards a socialist state and in a more long-term sense, a socialist world anyway. One can only *hope* that it plays out like that (and I'm pretty much a hardcore libertarian - but you gotta draw the line somewhere.)

Wow Ben.. pretty heavy and depressing. All of us have the limitation sometimes of not being able to see the forest through the trees. Our standard of living has increased dramatically over the past several decades.. both in the US and around the globe. We have cured many diseases and have made significant progress with Cancer and HIV.

I think all of you will find this short video very informing.. Enjoy!

 

[Poker Zombie]

Not to make this a political post, but the recent health law changes have corporations, small business owners, and wealthy taxpayers subsidizing the care for poor and elderly recipients.

We won't make it political then. I strongly disagree, and respect your decision to let the poor die because they don't have the funds to stay alive.

Side note: my occupation is paid 100% through taxes. I provide health care to everyone in my jurisdiction, regardless of ability to pay. We have never charged a dime, except to the taxpayers for medications, or services rendered. No it's not free - it's spread out across all citizens, and especially to business owners (businesses pay the majority of the taxes here). I personally have saved many lives, given death the finger, and risked my own life in the process.

For under $35,000 a year.

If I had access to a drug, no matter how expensive, I would administer it without asking for a credit card.

 

[DrStrange]

Let's not kid ourselves, medicine is socialized in the United States. Not for everyone, just several very large selected groups.

The elderly receive Medicare benefits well in excess of their lifetime contributions + the $100/month they pay for the insurance. Part "D" wrapped in low cost drug insurance courtesy of G W Bush. So when we talk about million dollar cancer treatments keep in mind who is likely going to need the medication and who pays for it.

The poor receive Medicaid. It is notable that the biggest Medicaid costs stem from the elderly once they deplete their assets, mainly assisted living costs.

People who work for entities large enough to offer health insurance get a two fold subsidy - they don't pay the 15% social security/medicare payroll tax and they don't pay income taxes on the value of the insurance. Prior to the Affordable Health Care Act they also got insurance for preexisting conditions worth thousands of dollars that other citizens did not get.

The three big groups who didn't get socialized medicine? The self employed, people who work businesses too small or too poor to afford health insurance for the staff and the working poor (though the current subsidies cover this group except in states that refused Medicaid expansion.)

The free market isn't going to work very well when the buyer isn't paying the cost of a $1,000 / day cancer treatment. Though the co-payment might be a deterrent for some.

DrStrange

PS And lets not kid ourselves about socialism destroys the profit motive. That is silly talk from political talk shows hosted by folks with little or no education. Socialism IS the primary profit motive behind a $1,000,000+ cancer drug - only a tiny sliver of the public could afford to pay for that out of their own resources. It took the wide availability of socialized medicine for the drug maker to decide this was the most profitable line of research to take.