Dubstepforum.com

Jurkhands wrote:somebody please explain to me why some people still think compulsory health insurance is a bad thing. because quite frankly, I don't see the issue.

dubunked wrote:IT'S TAKING AWAY YER FREEDOM!!!

it kinda is tho. you should be able to chose what services you want to pay for, and if you don't consider health a priority, why pay "just in case"? especially if you have a highly inefficient health system. if you can afford paying for health services only when you need them, why not?

plus, car insurance for example. because you Have to have it, prices will soar.

dubunked wrote:i didn't read the whole article, but for these purposes, this individual case doesn't really matter. much of the time, a single pill costs over $50,000. we're not talking about all the pills they'll have to take for the rest of their life. it could be millions of dollars that someone has to pay.

but you're definitely right, all parts of healthcare are way overpriced in america. i guess maybe people just think "oh it's just a little pill it probably costs $2 to make" and they don't take research and developmental costs into account. whereas when it comes to surgeries, the doctors life is kinda sorta also 'on the line' because malpractice is such a big problem in this country also and can ruin a dr's life, which also drives costs up. malpractice reform is one area where i actually think republicans are right about something. they traditionally are pro-reform.

but like i heard somewhere, probably on bill maher, that a typical hip replacement costs like $50 to manufacture, and is then sold to the hospital for $10,000, who then sells it to the patient for $35,000. people are definitely starting to wake up to the fact that it isn't just the pharma industry that is doing this, the hospitals are just as bad, charging $100 for a niacin pill and shit...

I work in pharmaceutics for the NHS and I can definitely back this up. The equipment we use all across the board is disgustingly overpriced. I work in isolator units and the door has a little pin that sits in the catch, that helps the door lock and seal. This pin is extremely brittle and breaks fairly often. It's about 1cm long. It costs over £200.
We have rubber sealers in our sterilising machines as well, which are nothing but simple rubber tubes that fit sit in the gap between the door and the chamber. When these are broken, they cost £3,500 to replace.

However, the drugs we use in the chemotherapy department are something else. Ipilumumab is a drug used for advanced breast cancer, it costs £25,000 for a single vial of this stuff (10ml)
Other typical drugs such as Cisplatin still cos thousands for a single vial.

The main issue is that development costs for critical, advanced drugs are super ridiculous. I'm talking billions, not millions.

We should also take a LOT of heart in the knowledge that these drugs tend to spike in price as long as the patent is valid. The patent runs out, other companies start producing their own versions, with different patient-delivery methods and so on and the prices come down a lot. Technological advances are being made all the time as well that help reduce the costs of making these drugs, both in terms of the approach to chemistry but also in sourcing of raw materials, equipments and methods. In that sense, I think people should be more positive about the advances medicine is making. Cancer in particular is becoming something that is more and more treatable, because targeting the cancer cells specifically has become much more of an option.

It is sad that these drugs aren't cheap NOW but there is always a buffer period. And as sad as it may be, there has to be a cash incentive for everything these days.

hugh wrote:Cancer in particular is becoming something that is more and more treatable

Good thing given pharma is responsible for the cancer explosion in the first place.

Flame me, pharma people.

nowaysj wrote:

hugh wrote:Cancer in particular is becoming something that is more and more treatable

Good thing given pharma is responsible for the cancer explosion in the first place.

Flame me, pharma people.

Absolutely nothing to do with people living longer and there being better records now? Nothing at all? All pharma's fault?

Yeah nope. Pharma injected millions with wild viruses in the early days of immunization. But that isn't a matter for the public, only of interest to the scientific community. Supposedly.

is that a conspiracy or a documented fact?

if so... fuck

thats deep

nowaysj wrote:Yeah nope. Pharma injected millions with wild viruses in the early days of immunization. But that isn't a matter for the public, only of interest to the scientific community. Supposedly.

loooooooooooool i wondered how long it would be until you spouted conspiracy nonsense again, just like the old days.

Agent 47 wrote:is that a conspiracy or a documented fact?

if so... fuck

thats deep

Without doubt a consiracy lol

Would a recording of Merck's head of immunology department suffice? @ agent. quick posting bastards.

No. Would a recording of someone important in the pharmaceutical industry saying the opposite convince you otherwise?

m8son wrote:just like the old days.

You know nothing of the old days.

ok

i quite enjoy the conspiracy threads

m8son wrote:ok

Don't try to Pete me.

nowaysj wrote:

hugh wrote:Cancer in particular is becoming something that is more and more treatable

Good thing given pharma is responsible for the cancer explosion in the first place.

Flame me, pharma people.

cancer explosion?

People are dying of cancer more because they AREN'T dying of other stuff. A lot of deaths from cancer were also not recorded as deaths from cancer back in the day, because they simply didn't know what caused the death.

But yeah I actually don't know what you are talking about so source or smth?