President Obama's health care--

[Cool Beans]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Everything you said is exactly my point. Younger people don't know any better. One major sickness could medically bankrupt a person and screw them over for the next 10+ years.

So, because the young sometimes make stupid decisions, we should take away there ability to choose?

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Cool Beans

So, because the young sometimes make stupid decisions, we should take away there ability to choose?

Where exactly did I say anything like that?

Are you so used to bitching about and trying to find something wrong with everything I say that you're completely blind to the fact that I'm against the Health Care Reform that's being proposed?

Edit: If you've paid any attention to my posts over the past few months, you'd know I'm against increased social welfare in all aspects and we should be cutting people off for making stupid decisions instead of rewarding them.

[Raven]

close to 100.000 people are dying each year due to staff infections
contracted in the hospital... from non standardized
health practices as reported on the news tonight....

this is costing us 40 BILLION a year

so any health reform has to include provisions to
prevent this from happening.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Raven

close to 100.000 people are dying each year due to staff infections
contracted in the hospital... from non standardized
health practices as reported on the news tonight....

this is costing us 40 BILLION a year

so any health reform has to include provisions to
prevent this from happening.

Good point Rav, and in addition there is more and more nosocomial
resistant staph which won't respond to current antibiotics and is killing people.

Why will Pharma research and develop new antibiotics if they can't make a decent
profit.

Are they addressing non standardized health practices in the HC Bill?
We don't know and chances are your Congressmen don't know either.

[scottw]

it's sooo much better under socialized medicine...



British Hospitals Struggle to Limit ‘Superbug’ Infections

Britain has one of the worst rates of hospital-acquired M.R.S.A. bloodstream infections in Europe, second only to Greece, and the problem is getting worse. The National Audit Office, a government watchdog organization, announced this month that there had been an 8 percent increase in the number of all staphylococcus aureus, or staph, infections in the bloodstream, to 19,311 in 2004 from 17,933 in 2001. Of those, 40 percent were resistant to the antibiotic methicillin.

But that reveals only a slice of the problem because the Department of Health, which began to keep figures on the infections in 2001, does not track the existence of staph infections outside the bloodstream, in wounds or in the urinary tract.

One in 10 patients contracts a staph infection while staying in England’s hospitals, which rank among the oldest and most crowded in Western Europe. Because superbugs multiply easily in unhygienic surroundings, dirty hospital wards and unclean hands contribute to their spread from patient to patient.

[Raven]

standing operating procedures


my wife has to deal with those on a daily basis
because they work with Hospital tubes
that have to be exact sizes and all that

but to learn that hospitals don't have the same
procedures... or s.o.p's blows my mind

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Why will Pharma research and develop new antibiotics if they can't make a decent profit.

Last time I checked, a few years ago, the average margin on Pharma was around 25%...that's not a bad profit.

Two opposing factors:

1) The current pharma environment drives companies to invest in category killer drugs that will produce massive returns.

2) The potential for litigation will prevent companies from moving on high-risk R&D investments.

So there's a lot more $$$ by producing the next Viagra rather than the staph-killing antibiotic that will rot 1 in 10:000's organs.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Last time I checked, a few years ago, the average margin on Pharma was around 25%...that's not a bad profit.



-spence

No, not a bad profit for drugs after the years of research and the amount
of compounds studied to produce one, then the cost of studies to prove it is safe and effective before it goes before the FDA for final approval.

Then there are, of course, the many drugs that now keep patients out
of costly hospital stays and increase length and quality of life.

What do you think the government will consider a fair profit for development
of a new drug and why shouldn't a company develope a product where there
is a profitable market for it?

[scottw]

Barney Frank.."I've had people come to us and complain, "Well, if you do that, I can't make any money." The answer is that's not my job. We're not here to help you make money. We are here to help have a system in which you will make money as an incident of your providing funds(or drugs) to those who will use it productively(or to those who need them)."

didn't you read Newsweek...."we're all Socialists now"....Americans, American corporations and small businesses exist for the sole purpose of funding the government which is growing at exponential rates...they don't care about profits for any of these businesses because they simply take/tax whatever they think they need regardless of the damage, if the business fails it just leaves one more area for another newly created government entity to fill the void....