OBAMA approval PLUMMETS to a dreadful 40%

[Ail]

mrstickball said:

richardhutnik said:

mrstickball said:

You know, you, nor anyone else that hates the American health care system has bothered answering my question about the 100% free-market system in the US that has costs 60% lower on average for every major surgery and drug, yet provides the same level of quality of care and death as the current heavily-regulated system.

You should answer my question about it before spouting that the free market wouldn't apply to drugs available from one manufacturer. Go look at soda pop - every time there is a major new flavor, it is copied significantly because there is no major IP law against coke-rippoffs, but there are for big pharma.

Welcome to the gotcha that gold-plates America's health care and makes it expensive.  Because of laws protecting IP research, companies spend a lot of money on new drugs and procedures, and techonology, which makes the US health care system like a luxury automobile maker.  If you were to not offer any IP laws to protect, do you think the medical industry would research as it had?  And this is likely part of the reason for costs soaring.  When it comes to health, people will spend anything to have what they need to be healthy.  Industries will build themselves around this.

The current system in the United States has a bunch of government money flowing into it, combine with neither harsh free market limitations on money, or government oversight to contain costs.  So flushed with cash, and no restrictions, the system keeps driving prices up.

Do you think America would have nearly the spending it does in the medical industry if it wasn't profitable to do so?

Additionally, the expenses on actually getting a product through the FDA are incredibly expensive. Many drugs fail trials, and their R&D costs are never re-couped unless the drug has a spin-off at a later date. Remove the stringent FDA regulations, and it becomes cheaper to do R&D for drugs (due to a higher success rate of the drug working), and the drugs can be provided to the public cheaper. Your assumption about profit is correct - profit motiviation means more research. Without the motivation, far less research would be done. The question is if the system is fair, and it is not. Due to the standards of the FDA, you will only have big pharma in power, producing drugs that can get through the red tape, leaving out other, smaller manufacturers and the like.

As for my argument about IP laws - I am not suggesting that there be no laws whatsoever, but they must ensure that the IP laws are fair and ensure competition, rather than massive monopolies to a chosen few. That is why pharma is so big and held by relatively few companies - because few have the monies to invest in massive R&D campaigns for drugs that may or may not be approved.

You volunteering to test new drugs without the FDA process ?

Just wondering...

I mean who cares, they'll probably find some poor suckers that really needs money and will agree for a fee to tests new drugs.

In the grand scheme of scheme, who cares if a few hundred poor suckers die to develop a new drugs that can save thousands of lives, right ?

Because if you go full free market, that is what will happen...

/sarcams off............