Contraception coverage and related insurance issues

Manwë was known for many things, but wisdom and power are two that lead the rest of his attributes. Join the Councils and discuss the more weighty matters of Tolkien Fandom.

Postby vison » Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:30 am

Minardil, another good and logical post. As in: real logic. Not fake logic that sets up straw men and then sets them on fire.
GM is alive.

Osama bin Laden is dead.
User avatar
vison
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12696
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 6:15 pm
Top

Postby Jnyusa » Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:35 am

Faramond wrote:That's a good, thoughtful post, Jn, but there is no chance I will participate in a thread that has basically become a group clubbing of another poster, no matter how much people feel he may deserve it.


Yeah, I understand.

For the record, I was not trying to club Heretic. He was angry that I left Cerin's thread without allowing him to defend himself against my accusation of repetitiveness, so I thought I would add above what I found repetitive about his posts.

It is also rather annoying that anytime a discussion is about equality of rights, both Heretic and CG end up accusing the rest of us of accusing them of racism.

From my perspective, pretty much all arguments are either evedentiary or prejudicial. Even a thesis that could only be an opinion can have arguments that are evidentiary. The merit of the thesis can be discussed in light of its arguments, its reasons. I labor hard to get my students to understand this, and to become able to formulate their opinion in terms of the evidence that convinced them to hold it in the first place, or, alternately, to realize that their opinion was formed irrationally and to reconsider whether it really reflects what they believe to be true.

Arguments that merely repeat the thesis (sometimes because the person doesn't want to reveal his reasons) are merely prejudicial and uninteresting.

People who present arguments that are prejudicial are not necessarily prejudiced people, though. (And Civil Rights is not only about racism, though race is the dimension of our society where the consequence of civil rights is probably easiest to see.) No, I think that prejudicial arguments are formulated because (1) they were learned elsewhere, (2) they require less thought, (3) the person making them does not really understand the question, or frames it in a solipsistic manner so that it can only be defended by repeating its own premise.

Sound reasoning is able to see how the argument and counter-argument are related to one another. The discussion evolves as a result.

And with those smug, elitist words, I regretfully reform everyone that I will probably not post more than one-liners here until July. Work is heating up. I am looking at really unpleasantly long hours for the next few months..
User avatar
Jnyusa
Mariner

 
Posts: 5934
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 8:24 pm
Top

Postby Cenedril_Gildinaur » Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:42 am

Jnyusa wrote:It is also rather annoying that anytime a discussion is about equality of rights, both Heretic and CG end up accusing the rest of us of accusing them of racism.


We find the initial accusation annoying as well. Perhaps we can find a mutually beneficial solution.
User avatar
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 11197
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 7:35 pm
Location: The Real World
Top

Postby vison » Wed Mar 21, 2012 1:19 pm

Seems appropriate:


"God, I have a problem."

"What is it, Eve?"

"I know that you created me and provided this beautiful garden and all of these wonderful animals, especially that hilarious snake, but I'm just not happy."

"And why is that Eve?"

"God, I'm lonely, and I'm sick to death of apples."

"Well, Eve, in that case I have a solution. I shall create a man for you."

"Man? What is that?"

"A flawed creature with many bad traits. He'll lie, cheat and be vain. All in all he'll give you a hard time, but he'll be bigger and faster and will like to hunt and kill things. I'll create him in such a way that he will satisfy your physical needs. He will be witless and will revel in childish things like fighting and kicking a ball about. He won't be as smart as you, so he will also need your advice to think properly."

"Sounds great," says Eve, with ironically raised eyebrows, " but what's the catch?"

"Well,.....you can have him on one condition."

"And what's that? "

"Well, since he'll be proud, arrogant and self-admiring, you'll have to let him believe that I made him first. And it will have to be our little secret .. you know, woman to woman."
GM is alive.

Osama bin Laden is dead.
User avatar
vison
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12696
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 6:15 pm
Top

Postby Faramond » Wed Mar 21, 2012 3:08 pm

I'm sorry to hear you'll be missing, Jn.

Sounds like Eve got a bad deal there, vison.

I think that if you have a kind of health insurance with high co-pays where the philosophy behind the insurance is to cover catastrophic costs, then a mandate to also cover contraception 100% would be incompatible, and I would have a hard time seeing how it was a civil rights issue.

But for health insurance that covers most things, including preventative care, I think the mandate would be appropriate in the narrow context of preventing discrimination.
User avatar
Faramond
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1366
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 11:06 pm
Top

Postby Minardil » Wed Mar 21, 2012 3:21 pm

Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:
Minardil wrote:Hey, according to you guys I am free to choose wherever my money goes. I'm throwing some of mine in the pot to help you get fixed.


Shouldn't you be harassing a billy goat right now?


Why bother with goats when there are so many . . um. . "donkeys" around?
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9944
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Postby Minardil » Wed Mar 21, 2012 3:45 pm

Jnyusa wrote:It is also rather annoying that anytime a discussion is about equality of rights, both Heretic and CG end up accusing the rest of us of accusing them of racism.



Yes, there is nothing more annoying than hysterical accusations of racism. Like the baseless charge leveled against THIS innocent woman:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/don-t-nig-purveyor-paula-smith-says-bumper-185405237.html

I mean, all she did was sell an anti-Obama bumper sticker that said "Don't Re-Nig". Why, there is nothing remotely racist about THAT! The poor woman points out that the full word that starts with "Nig" and rhymes with the "trigger" is a perfectly acceptable word with NO "racist" usage and besides she has lots of black friends.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9944
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Postby Cenedril_Gildinaur » Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:28 pm

Minardil wrote:
Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:
Minardil wrote:Hey, according to you guys I am free to choose wherever my money goes. I'm throwing some of mine in the pot to help you get fixed.


Shouldn't you be harassing a billy goat right now?


Why bother with goats when there are so many . . um. . "donkeys" around?


Not interested in your personal life.

Minardil wrote:
Jnyusa wrote:It is also rather annoying that anytime a discussion is about equality of rights, both Heretic and CG end up accusing the rest of us of accusing them of racism.



Yes, there is nothing more annoying than hysterical accusations of racism. Like the baseless charge leveled against THIS innocent woman:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/don-t-nig-purveyor-paula-smith-says-bumper-185405237.html

I mean, all she did was sell an anti-Obama bumper sticker that said "Don't Re-Nig". Why, there is nothing remotely racist about THAT! The poor woman points out that the full word that starts with "Nig" and rhymes with the "trigger" is a perfectly acceptable word with NO "racist" usage and besides she has lots of black friends.


So you're saying your intent was not racist?
User avatar
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 11197
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 7:35 pm
Location: The Real World
Top

Postby The Heretic » Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:57 pm

Minardil wrote:
Why would I be upset about paying for something that I choose to pay for (if I am not mistaken, currently my health plan covers contraception)?


Conservatives keep talking about having the freedom to "choose" when it comes to Health Insurance, but realistically what choices are available to any of us?

Most of us who actually HAVE Health Insurance get it through our employers. As a benefit of our employment it is part of our compensation, but most of us still make some out-of-pocket contributions to the premiums through payroll deductions, and of course most of us have co-pays etc when we actually go to use any medical services. The point being here that we ARE paying for our insurance, we aren't getting it "for free".

When Obama mandates that you get a job, get back to me. At this point, there is no law compelling you to take a job.

And I'd say that situation is really pretty typical, so what we have is a de facto monopoly on health care insurance in the hands of employer, where the majority of us who have insurance have NO access to any sort of competitive options.

Why is that? Why is insurance in the hands of the employer?
Given that situation, isn't reasonable that the Government implement some common sense regulatory oversight to ensure that these monopolies provide a bare minimum level of acceptable services?

I would need some more specific examples. Until then, the government should pretty much limit itself to enforcement of contract, prevention of fraud.

Since we realistically DON'T have the option of switching to a new insurance company if our current provider decides not to cover a service that we need, is it really wrong for the government to establish minimum levels of coverage that ALL plans must meet, just to keep the monopoly that controls our insurance from screwing us over to make a buck?

Was the service you need in the contract you agreed to?
Last edited by The Heretic on Wed Mar 21, 2012 5:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Heretic
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:01 am
Top

Postby The Heretic » Wed Mar 21, 2012 5:06 pm

portia wrote:If a person voluntarily becomes part of an insurance pool, they take on the rules of that pool. No one, even under Obamacare, will be forced into a pool. a person can opt out and pay the "penalty" (Less than insurance, IIRC)

So, If you do not want to contribute to a pool that will help to pay for someone else's health-related decisions; opt out. (I do not consider that a very good choice, but if "force" is so offensive to you, you can avoid it by opting out).

That is the force. Do what I say, or I will punish you.
But lets go from there, I 'opt' out. Now, I refuse to pay the fine. What happens?
The problem is an illusion. it exists only because you want it both ways: You want others to pay for your choices, but not to pay for someone else's choices.

No, false, I want you to pay for your choices. You want to compel me to pay for your choices. I want me to pay for my choices. I don't want to compel you to pay for my choices.
The Heretic
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:01 am
Top

Postby The Heretic » Wed Mar 21, 2012 5:09 pm

Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:
The Heretic wrote:Then followed by the attempt to end the debate or silence the opponent through insuating racism/bigotry. (See the other thread as well or the Superhighway thread for more examples of this attempt).


That's pretty common around here actually. I used to think that said insinuations were the last resort of one who has run out of arguments, but lately they've been coming earlier and earlier into the arguments.

I have noticed that, but I don't think it common as in most or even many doing it.
The Heretic wrote:Since you are in favor of the use of force to take what is mine for your benefit, you then must be in favor of me using force to take what is yours for my personal benefit.


Too logical.

It is a more logical extension of the other posters argument, as compared the one she attempted to make.
Last edited by The Heretic on Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.
The Heretic
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:01 am
Top

Postby The Heretic » Wed Mar 21, 2012 5:23 pm

Minardil wrote:But back to this idea you are all throwing around that you are being "forced" through taxation to pay for someone else to have sex and all, does that objection hold only to this subject? Are you saying that we should all be able to pick and choose as individuals where our individual tax contributions are spent, and to withhold any portion of our taxes that are allocated for programs or priorities that we personally find objectionable?

I am unsure of who 'you guys' is here. However, When posters on the other side of this argument have raised the issue of taxes, I have tended to point out, it is a subject change. What is happening, is not taxes.


You see, what I'm getting at is that THIS comment is complete and utter NONSENSE:

The Heretic said:

Since you are in favor of the use of force to take what is mine for your benefit, you then must be in favor of me using force to take what is yours for my personal benefit.


NO ONE is in favor of PERSONALLY using "force" to take money from anybody and give it to ourselves for our own benefit. What we are ALL in favor of, really, is using the democratic process to elect representatives to our government that will allocate funds for all sorts of programs based on the perceived will of the people and the representative's interpretation of which programs are in the best interests of the people. Sometimes we ALL have to pay for government programs we'd rather not support, but just because that happens doesn't mean we are being "robbed" or that our "freedoms" are being trampled by a tyrannical government, it just means that in that particular case we didn't get to have it our way. Anyone who says otherwise and prattles on about tyranny is the real troll.

1)Are you calling someone involved in this thread a troll? If so be specific and name the poster.
2) Force is involved. The law says, you will do what as you are told, or you will be punished. That is force.
3) Do insurance companies belong to the government? Does contraception belong the government?
The Heretic
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:01 am
Top

Postby The Heretic » Wed Mar 21, 2012 5:46 pm

Jnyusa wrote:
Faramond wrote:That's a good, thoughtful post, Jn, but there is no chance I will participate in a thread that has basically become a group clubbing of another poster, no matter how much people feel he may deserve it.


Yeah, I understand.

For the record, I was not trying to club Heretic. He was angry that I left Cerin's thread without allowing him to defend himself against my accusation of repetitiveness, so I thought I would add above what I found repetitive about his posts.

Again, another false statement by Jnyusa. I am not angry at all. What I do note, is that when challenged on your false accusations and deliberate mis-representations, you could not support them. (And how is the other thread Cerin's?)

It is also rather annoying that anytime a discussion is about equality of rights, both Heretic and CG end up accusing the rest of us of accusing them of racism.


The rest of you? Are you multiple people? I have noted race hustling type responses by two posters that I recall, in discussions that had nothing to do with race (except as, for example, you introduced race and insinuated racism to derail the discourse (and I suggest that everyone who wants to see it in action, read the portion of the Superhighway thread regarding the killing of Aulaqi and his citizenship, where she decided that the appropriate response to the evidence cited against her assertion was not only her mis-representations of what I said or believed, but insinuations of racism levelled at me, who said nothing against Obama ordering the killing of Aulaqi, nor anything about race, creed, color or religion, and of which I will note that Jnyusa had recent opportunity to back up her assertions/insinuations, and could not do so).
Last edited by The Heretic on Wed Mar 21, 2012 9:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.
The Heretic
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:01 am
Top

Postby vison » Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:02 pm

Is it "insinuating racism" to compare some of the issues we are currently discussing to the civil rights struggle?

I think not.

I also think that to say otherwise is a ploy that won't work here. :)
GM is alive.

Osama bin Laden is dead.
User avatar
vison
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12696
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 6:15 pm
Top

Postby The Heretic » Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:07 pm

vison wrote:Is it "insinuating racism" to compare some of the issues we are currently discussing to the civil rights struggle?

I think not.

I also think that to say otherwise is a ploy that won't work here. :)

The ploy involved was Jnyusa's insinuation of racism and yes Jnyusa comparison was insinuatibg racism. And that ploy wont work (anymore than your suggestion that I am troubled by women's sexuality http://forums.theonering.com/viewtopic. ... 47#3987947 ).

And what civil right is involved?
Last edited by The Heretic on Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.
The Heretic
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:01 am
Top

Postby portia » Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:22 pm

[quote="The Heretic"]
That is the force. Do what I say, or I will punish you.
But lets go from there, I 'opt' out. Now, I refuse to pay the fine. What happens?
[quote]
It is probably no different from other situations where you have a reasonable choice, but do not like either choice and refuse to chose. You loose out on whatever the choice involved, and do without. In this case, you get to pay for all your own health expenses, with no help from anyone. (I personally think that a penalty will not survive in the courts, or in public opinion).

But, you should hope that it does survive, as it will almost certainly be less expensive, and easier to deal with, than paying all your health expenses yourself. If it is worth it to you, to avoid government "force," you are free to make a "no choice" choice.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Postby The Heretic » Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:29 pm

portia wrote:
The Heretic wrote:That is the force. Do what I say, or I will punish you.
But lets go from there, I 'opt' out. Now, I refuse to pay the fine. What happens?
It is probably no different from other situations where you have a reasonable choice, but do not like either choice and refuse to chose. You loose out on whatever the choice involved, and do without. In this case, you get to pay for all your own health expenses, with no help from anyone. (I personally think that a penalty will not survive in the courts, or in public opinion).

But, you should hope that it does survive, as it will almost certainly be less expensive, and easier to deal with, than paying all your health expenses yourself. If it is worth it to you, to avoid government "force," you are free to make a "no choice" choice.

It is still force.
I refuse to pay the fine, what does the government do?
The Heretic
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:01 am
Top

Postby JewelSong » Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:44 pm

The Heretic wrote:I refuse to pay the fine, what does the government do?


Take it out of your taxes, probably.

Do you pay taxes? Even though you are forced to do so?
User avatar
JewelSong
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 4634
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 6:31 am
Top

Postby The Heretic » Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:47 pm

JewelSong wrote:
The Heretic wrote:I refuse to pay the fine, what does the government do?


Take it out of your taxes, probably.

And if I resist that taking of it?
The Heretic
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:01 am
Top

Postby Jnyusa » Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:56 pm

Faramond wrote:I think that if you have a kind of health insurance with high co-pays where the philosophy behind the insurance is to cover catastrophic costs, then a mandate to also cover contraception 100% would be incompatible, and I would have a hard time seeing how it was a civil rights issue.


I do agree with this.

It is the medical community that is trying to convince government to go in the direction of broad, preventative care. I don't think the approach taken by the 2009 legislation is likely to give the desired result, though, but that's such a multidimensional issue, I just can't get going on long conversations about it in the immediate future.
User avatar
Jnyusa
Mariner

 
Posts: 5934
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 8:24 pm
Top

Postby JewelSong » Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:15 pm

The Heretic wrote:

And if I resist that taking of it?[/quote]


How would you resist?
User avatar
JewelSong
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 4634
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 6:31 am
Top

Postby The Heretic » Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:33 pm

JewelSong wrote:
The Heretic wrote:

And if I resist that taking of it?



How would you resist?[/quote]
By refusing to give it to the government.
The Heretic
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:01 am
Top

Postby JewelSong » Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:35 pm

The Heretic wrote:By refusing to give it to the government.


Interesting. Where I work, they take the taxes out before I even get my paycheck.

Maybe you are self-employed? I assume that you pay taxes, although you have not answered that question yet (despite my asking you four times so far...)

Anyway, I do know that if you refuse to pay taxes, you can lose your house, your property and be jailed. I supposed you could choose to do that.
User avatar
JewelSong
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 4634
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 6:31 am
Top

Postby The Heretic » Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:45 pm

JewelSong wrote:
The Heretic wrote:By refusing to give it to the government.


Interesting. Where I work, they take the taxes out before I even get my paycheck.

Maybe you are self-employed? I assume that you pay taxes, although you have not answered that question yet (despite my asking you four times so far...)

Well, you have asked; is it at all relevant? And if so how?
Anyway, I do know that if you refuse to pay taxes, you can lose your house, your property and be jailed. I supposed you could choose to do that.

In other words I can comply, or I will be punished (which point I have made previously, and note not acknowledged but made) to compel me to behave in a desired manner. I can pay one way or I can pay another, but I will be made to pay ("lump it"). That is force or compulsion or legal compulsion or force of law. But in the end, force none the less.
The Heretic
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:01 am
Top

Postby JewelSong » Thu Mar 22, 2012 2:54 am

The Heretic wrote:In other words I can comply, or I will be punished... to compel me to behave in a desired manner. I can pay one way or I can pay another, but I will be made to pay. That is force or compulsion or legal compulsion or force of law. But in the end, force none the less.


Yep. That's the way the ball bounces in the world. You "have" to do some things, or suffer the consequences of not doing them. Your "choice" is to do them, or take your lumps, I suppose.

And unless you've found some way to live completely independently of other people, that is the way the ball is going to continue to bounce.

And now, I think this horse is not only dead, but a rotting corpse...so I am going to exit this part of the "discussion." ;)
User avatar
JewelSong
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 4634
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 6:31 am
Top

Postby portia » Thu Mar 22, 2012 7:02 am

I have been interested in vison's comments that prescriptions are not covered by the health plan in Canada and why it is different in the US.

Some of the factors seem to me to be:

1.Prescription drugs are expensive to develop and bring to market in the US, as the FDA still requires a lot of testing, and proof of safety and effectiveness. That all costs money, of course, and the drug companies want to recover it in the US, where the costs were required. (IMO, it is sound, economically, to recover the costs from the population whose government made the costs necessary. Also, there is resistance to negotiation of prices with large buying groups such as the military and large insurance companies or Medicare.)

2. Other countries may not require the same kind of testing, or at least not testing that is different from or more than was already done in the US, so the cost structure--that has to be recovered in that country-- is smaller.

3. Some other countries, I believe, have controls on the prices that can be charged for prescription drugs, limiting the cost to the consumer. If that means that there is a loss or the profit is smaller, the difference may have to be made up where there are no controls, such as the US.

4. There are political/charitable/PR pressures to charge less for some drugs--especially lifesaving drugs-- in countries where few people can pay what would otherwise be charged. If that involves a loss to the company, it will have to be made up somewhere, and the US is the obvious "where."

These factors, and I am sure there are others, mean that the cost of prescription drugs in the US is higher than some other places, like Canada.
That, in turn, creates pressure for insurance coverage of the drugs, with limited co-pays. Insurance rates can be higher, and issues such as discrimination in coverage are bound to arise.

Since some of the factors are endemic, or at least inherent in the US market, I do not see a likelihood for change, soon.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Postby SeverusSnape » Thu Mar 22, 2012 7:17 am

Just so there isn't another thread locked today.

I shouldn't have to say it, but this has strayed far and wide of logical debate and is speeding down the freeway of personal statements and attacks.

Pull over and enjoy the scenery!!

Severus Snape
Image

"The Dark Arts are many, varied, ever-changing and eternal. Fighting them is like fighting a many-headed monster, which, each time a neck is severed, sprouts a head even fiercer and cleverer than before. You are fighting that which is unfixed, mutating, indestructible."

Severus Snape
Moderator of the Dark Arts

severussnape@theonering.com
User avatar
SeverusSnape
Moderator of the Dark Arts

 
Posts: 1734
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 12:50 pm
Location: In Your Mind
Top

Postby vison » Thu Mar 22, 2012 8:01 am

portia, there is something in what you say. However, many drugs are not developed in the US, but in Europe, and Canada almost always does its own testing of drugs before they are released.

It is a smaller market, of course.

I think that if Americans did not have to pay such huge premiums for health insurance, they would be able to afford their prescriptions, most of the time. Certainly for common things like birth control pills and daily needs like that.
GM is alive.

Osama bin Laden is dead.
User avatar
vison
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12696
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 6:15 pm
Top

Postby Dave_LF » Thu Mar 22, 2012 8:38 am

portia wrote:1.Prescription drugs are expensive to develop and bring to market in the US, as the FDA still requires a lot of testing, and proof of safety and effectiveness. That all costs money, of course, and the drug companies want to recover it in the US, where the costs were required. (IMO, it is sound, economically, to recover the costs from the population whose government made the costs necessary.


Or you could argue that since everyone benefits from the additional safety testing the US government mandates, everyone should pay for it.
User avatar
Dave_LF
Mariner

 
Posts: 7187
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 8:39 pm
Top

Postby hamlet » Thu Mar 22, 2012 8:56 am

Dave_LF wrote:
portia wrote:1.Prescription drugs are expensive to develop and bring to market in the US, as the FDA still requires a lot of testing, and proof of safety and effectiveness. That all costs money, of course, and the drug companies want to recover it in the US, where the costs were required. (IMO, it is sound, economically, to recover the costs from the population whose government made the costs necessary.


Or you could argue that since everyone benefits from the additional safety testing the US government mandates, everyone should pay for it.


Except most people choose to argue about how evil it is for the pharmaceutical companies to even dream of earning a profit and why aren't the drugs free anyway?

The answer is that there's really no simple reason why the drugs cost so much, and no easy or easily palatable "fix" to it.
User avatar
hamlet
Ringbearer
 
Posts: 10562
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 12:01 pm
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy: Councils of Manwë

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests