High cost has many diabetics cutting back on insulin

[Excon]

Oh lord. I really hope you never get type I or type II, it is tough enough without having to read idiotic posts.

iLOL
Nothing idiotic about what I said.
You want diabetic coverage, pay for it on your own or earn it like I did.

 

[Excon]

I live there. That's how I know it's better. Far better.

iLOL Of course you think your biased perception is valid.

Try and talk any Canadian into switching to an American based system. Very very very few will agree.

Really not a valid argument.
Give people stuff that others are paying for and of course they do not want it to stop.

They did a poll in Canada on who the greatest Canadian of all time was. Wasn't a hockey player. Wasn't a Prime Minister. Was the guy who brought in Universal Healthcare...Tommy Douglas.

Also not a valid argument.

If you don't believe me, look up the facts. Canadians pay far less, and have better outcomes, such as longer lives, lower infant mortality, etc. You've just let others tell you what to think, instead of putting in the effort to learn for yourself.

I suggest you look up the actual facts and how the actual comparisons are not accurate and the surveys biased.
I did a whole post about it years ago. Things haven't changed.

 

[Excon]

To you undoubtedly, then again one has to raise their intellect and abandon your type of primitive thinking to understand what is a society, how it functions and what protections it needs in order to remain viable. The days when cavemen stood by the entrance of their cave guarding their crap are long gone.

iLOL And yet another invalid reply. You are not making a valid argument.

 

[Excon]

Free market libertarian bull**** fails entirely in scenarios like this because the demand curve on "continuing to live" is infinitely steep.

That is an argument against the government providing treatment. Society should not be burdened with "infinitely steep" demands.

 

[JustHanging]

iLOL Of course you think your biased perception is valid.

Please, quit being ridiculous. The data supports my assertions.

Really not a valid argument.

Then we disagree, because I always consider reality to be a valid argument.

I suggest you look up the actual facts and how the actual comparisons are not accurate and the surveys biased.

As I pointed out, we have better outcomes and pay far less, about 1/3 less than you.

I did a whole post about it years ago. Things haven't changed.

No, they haven't. The Canadian, and just about every healthcare system in the Western World, was better a few years ago, and they still are today. Pay far less, and get better outcomes.

But hey, maybe you're right. Let's hear your argument why it's better to pay far more for poorer outcomes.


I'll start out providing the data: World Health Organization from 2000, when you said American system was better.

France - #1
Canada - #30
USA - #37

Feel free to provide other data from other reputable sources regarding overall performance of the healthcare systems by country.


EDIT:

Or here from the OECD: Cost per capita (2016):

#1 - Australia $4708
#4 - Canada $4753
...
#35 - USA $9892


From infoplease.com (not sure how reputable, disagree with the findings if you want). They say data is from US Census Bureau:


Infant mortality rate:

Singapore 2.3
Canada 5.0
United States 6.2

 

[Deuce]

That is an argument against the government providing treatment. Society should not be burdened with "infinitely steep" demands.

Yes, I agree, sickness and death shouldn't exist but until we invent immortality we're gonna have to work with the world that exists, not the one we wish exists.

 

[JustHanging]

Yes, I agree, sickness and death shouldn't exist but until we invent immortality we're gonna have to work with the world that exists, not the one we wish exists.

Hey, come on, who wouldn't want to live in an Ayn Rand simulation?

 

[Excon]

Please, quit being ridiculous. The data supports my assertions.

iLOL Sure. Biased surveys and biased opinion which make up the data support your position.
So the answer still is; Of course you think your biased perception is valid.

And btw, you might want to inform all those Canadians that they should just stay in Canada instead of going to the US and elsewhere because you think your treatment is so much better. iLOL

[...]

The Fraser Institute, a Canadian public policy think tank, estimates that 52,513 Canadians received non-emergency medical treatment in the U.S. and other countries in 2014, a 25 percent jump from the roughly 41,838 who sought medical care abroad the previous year.

[...]
Crossing the Border for Care​

It seems those Canadians with the money to spend elsewhere have a different opinion than you do.

Then we disagree, because I always consider reality to be a valid argument.

Your perception does not equal actual realty.

As I pointed out, we have better outcomes and pay far less, about 1/3 less than you.

Better outcomes? How so and in regards to what? Are you speaking of access being a better outcome, or something like cancer survival rates?

No, they haven't. Canadian, and just about every healthcare system in the Western World, were better a few years ago, and they still are today. Pay far less, and get better outcomes.

Better? No.
That is not something you can prove.
Biased surveys and different collection of stats is not "proof" of that.

Are you aware of the claimed bias and flaws with the World Health Organizations Rankings?

You know, those rankings that came with the "World Health Report 2000".
The oft cited report that ranks France as first, Spain as Seventh, Japan as Tenth and the United States as Thirty-seventh?

I ask because even though they are from 2000, they seem to get thrown out a lot in discussions of health-care to try and substantiate, and in support of, more government involvement and control.

When in all reality, the Rankings were flawed and outright biased from the start.

So I am wondering if you were aware that the claims were flawed and biased?

Please read the following information and answer two of the poll questions.

[..]

But hey, maybe you're right. Let's hear your argument why it's better to pay far more for poorer outcomes.

I made no claim about the US being "better" or the non-US having "poorer" outcomes. So stop trying to create straw and argue what was actually said.


I see you edit your post to include exactly what I was referring to. Good. As you can see the information in the post I referenced destroys those rankings as being biased bs.

 

[Excon]

Yes, I agree, sickness and death shouldn't exist ...

That is odd. You agree with something I did not say, nor would I ever say that because they should exist.
If you want to take steps to postpone the natural outcome of life that is your choice and all the more power to ya.
But that is a personal choice and should never be a governmental function.

... we're gonna have to work with the world that exists, not the one we wish exists.

iLOL
The world that exists is one where illness exists and death is the natural outcome of natural life.
The individual reacts to things such as illness. This is nature and natural.
You are entitled to what is natural, which is providing what you can on your own. That is what exists.

The one you want to exist is the one where a government extends it's power beyond just governing to the detriment of those who are more successful.

 

[Individual]

It looks like the rapid increase in cost began shortly after the passage of the ACA. Why did it take so long, 7 years, to become a news worthy issue?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I'll start out providing the data: World Health Organization from 2000, when you said American system was better.

France - #1
Canada - #30
USA - #37

A friend of mine named Paul Hipp did a very entertaining video about that, you're gonna laugh hard.

 

[Excon]

A friend of mine named Paul Hipp did a very entertaining video about that, you're gonna laugh hard.

[video=youtube;yVgOl3cETb4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVgOl3cETb4[video]

Your friend made a song out of a biased and flawed ranking and it is clear that he didn't know that. He stupid for not bothering to check the veracity of the claims and should feel as dumb as ****.

 

[phattonez]

Why? Okay lets just stop production. You need insulin? Produce it yourself.
People are not and should never be entitled to the product and services of another.

Let others produce it. Do you think you should be a millionaire profiting off of disease? We're not talking about subsistence here. We're talking about investors who didn't develop it, didn't produce it, and just collect checks. These are leeches on society.

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

 

[phattonez]

Well then 'We the people' should elect those who would put the management of insulin under government control.

Because whilst we might not be entitled to products and services, some simply serve the public good. Insulin (and healthcare in general) is one.

We don't even need to do that. Let's just let other companies produce it. Make it generic. It would be as cheap as Tylenol because that's how much it costs to produce it.

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

 

[phattonez]

The free market answer. Of course...getting rid of intellectual property rights is also a free market answer. But something tells me you'd object to that...

The profits of billionaires comes before all else. Isn't it clear that this is the capitalist's highest priority?

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

 

[phattonez]

insulin production is an old technology. i don't see a good reason not to use the public sector to manufacture it. i feel the same way about antibiotic discovery and production.

Just let other private companies produce it. Only three companies are allowed to do it. This is blatant enrichment of billionaires at the expense of the sick.

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

 

[Excon]

insulin production is an old technology. i don't see a good reason not to use the public sector to manufacture it. i feel the same way about antibiotic discovery and production.

And there is a employment opportunity for you. Director of a non-profit diabetic treatment organization.
There are enough diabetics in the US to support such an endeavor.


But let me guess, you are not really interested in making an actual effort to help diabetics in this manner without placing a burden on others.

 

[Excon]

Let others produce it. Do you think you should be a millionaire profiting off of disease? We're not talking about subsistence here. We're talking about investors who didn't develop it, didn't produce it, and just collect checks. These are leeches on society.

You have a very weird and inaccurate outlook.
Manufacturing and providing a treatment for a disease does not make one a leech. On the other hand, a person wanting the government to forcibly take from others to provide for them does make them a leech.

We don't even need to do that. Let's just let other companies produce it. Make it generic. It would be as cheap as Tylenol because that's how much it costs to produce it. .

iLOL No.

 

[phattonez]

That is an argument against the government providing treatment. Society should not be burdened with "infinitely steep" demands.

Is the economy made for men, or men for the economy?

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

 

[phattonez]

And there is a employment opportunity for you. Director of a non-profit diabetic treatment organization.
There are enough diabetics in the US to support such an endeavor.


But let me guess, you are not really interested in making an actual effort to help diabetics in this manner without placing a burden on others.

Do you realize the profits that these companies make? You're under the impression that production costs are close to the listed price. Unless a drug has generic competition, that's absolutely not true.

Free markets fail when you don't have a free market. When you have an exclusive patent, there is no free market.

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

 

[phattonez]

You have a very weird and inaccurate outlook.
Manufacturing and providing a treatment for a disease does not make one a leech. On the other hand, a person wanting the government to forcibly take from others to provide for them does make them a leech.


iLOL No.

How does someone who buys shares of a company and collects dividends manufacture and provide treatment?

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

 

[Northern Light]

This kind of abuse of human life in the name of profit is not going to stop until these psychopaths push society to the point that people lose major freedoms or start dying on mass unless they are willing to fork over their savings for life sustaining drugs, goods or services. Maybe then people will rise up and burn these companies down or serve mob justice to their CEOs. These companies are run by people with names and home addresses.

Most live saving drugs are cheap to make. They aren't even recouping R&D costs at this point. They're just taking an old drug, re-branding it with a slightly altered formula, patenting it, and then taking the old version off the market. And nobody at any level of government is willing to criminalize this psychopathic behavior.

So yeah... be "outraged", but as long as nobody fights back, this will keep happening and it'll get worse.

 

[Excon]

Is the economy made for men, or men for the economy?

Do you really need to be told?

Do you realize the profits that these companies make?

Irrelevant.
Their profit is theirs to make.

You're under the impression that production costs are close to the listed price.

Really? Is that what you absurdly think? :lamo

Unless a drug has generic competition, that's absolutely not true.

iLOL Prove it.

Free markets fail when you don't have a free market. When you have an exclusive patent, there is no free market.

1. No.
2. As the first patent on a long-acting synthetic insulin expired in June 2014, I will suggest the same to that I suggested to Helix.

And there is a employment opportunity for you. Director of a non-profit diabetic treatment organization.
There are enough diabetics in the US to support such an endeavor.


But let me guess, you are not really interested in making an actual effort to help diabetics in this manner without placing a burden on others.

How does someone who buys shares of a company and collects dividends manufacture and provide treatment?

Are you really unaware that, generally speaking, a share holder becomes a partial owner of the company?

 

[Excon]

This kind of abuse of human life in the name of profit is not going to stop until these psychopaths push society to the point that people lose major freedoms or start dying on mass unless they are willing to fork over their savings for life sustaining drugs, goods or services. Maybe then people will rise up and burn these companies down or serve mob justice to their CEOs. These companies are run by people with names and home addresses.

Most live saving drugs are cheap to make. They aren't even recouping R&D costs at this point. They're just taking an old drug, re-branding it with a slightly altered formula, patenting it, and then taking the old version off the market. And nobody at any level of government is willing to criminalize this psychopathic behavior.

So yeah... be "outraged", but as long as nobody fights back, this will keep happening and it'll get worse.

The position you take is abhorrent.
You are not entitled to the product and services of another. Period.
But not for the drive of profit there would be nowhere near as many being treated.

So you go ahead and rise-up and watch people die. Good luck with that.

 

[Serenity]

Approx cost of quick acting Insulin in Australia is approx $6.00 for around 3 months supply if you have a health Care Card and just under $40 for a 3 months supply if you don't. The long acting Insulin is the same price but the supply will last longer as you will generally only inject that once a day.

Much more affordable here for those who need access to it in an affordable manner and actually do rely on it to stay alive.