DDL on 8/10/2009 at 17:40
Regarding drugs 'n shit staying expensive or getting more expensive, it might (nb: total speculation) be because the stuff we can cure/treat already is curable/treatable already because it was fucking EASY to cure/treat in the first place.
As we get toward treatments for ever more precise and specialist conditions, and of course the 'prevalent but just hard to treat' things, the amount of research and developement needed to get a working product that doesn't also make you grow boobs/die is getting higher and higher, and thus more expensive.
After all, technology increases only really help us
A) synthesize the actual drugs more easily
B) analyse effects of drugs more precisely
C) investigate conditions in more excrutiating detail
but they don't make us come up with better ideas more rapidly, or find which exact fucking kinase your inhibitor of choice is actually inhibiting, or even what that inhibition actually results in. Basically all the easy stuff is DONE, and the hard stuff takes time and effort, so even though drug X costs maybe 4 cents a pill, the amount of money that was invested to produce drug X in the first place is still sufficient to make charging 40 bucks a pop a necessary fee.
also, actually,
D) technology is helping us discover that half the shit we've all been using for years to treat conditions by inhibiting X Y and Z doesn't actually do that at all, and the fact that it actually treats the condition it was intended to treat is more luck than judgement. Science is crazy sometimes.
SubJeff on 8/10/2009 at 17:47
Quote Posted by DDL
technology is helping us discover that half the shit we've all been using for years to treat conditions by inhibiting X Y and Z doesn't actually do that at all
Untrue.
the_grip on 8/10/2009 at 17:52
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
In the UK ER docs a. get the same pay as everyone else at the same level and b.
chose to take that specialty so boo hoo cry some moar.
a. I'm talking about pay in the States
b. Yes some do chose it, my point was just that it is not nearly as lucrative in terms of stress ratio to others.
Although you do make some good points, and I know that in the states GP's are often some of the least paid in terms of docs - and they *can* have high stress positions (my sister-in-law does, but she works for a government agency that basically doles out free care for poor immigrant workers). At any rate, this is a tangent to the original question of are they paid in terms of market value or restricted supply.
One real life example, and this is just one personal experience, but my doctor won't even discuss my meds over the phone (I take Ambien CR for sleep and he wants me to take Lexapro as well but I refuse to do it after taking it for over a month... the Ambien CR is doing enough). He wants me to come in, pay my copay, etc. etc. to even *discuss* the meds. I'm sure the medical insurance agencies love this kind of behavior... and of course he has to have the latest gadgets and rigmarole for his staff so that they look like walking Radio Shacks. That's important, no? He's a nice guy, but he has dollar signs instead of pupils.
SubJeff on 8/10/2009 at 23:06
Quote Posted by the_grip
At any rate, this is a tangent to the original question of are they paid in terms of market value or restricted supply.
A little bit, but my point is that doctors are paid for the combination of knowledge, skill and the burden of responsibility. I think that adds up to market value. Want to reduce the number of doctors? Reduce pay.
People will not study at university for a minimum of 5 years (and up to 7), have big loans to pay off, be expected to continue tough training for up to 15 years post-graduation, have massive professional responsibilities with strict ethical demands both in AND out of the job if they are not given a suitable financial incentive for all this. I'm not saying doctors only do the job for the love of money (God knows there are easier ways of making the same or more) but if you strip that away as well...
Swiss Mercenary on 8/10/2009 at 23:17
Quote:
Partially correct: the American health care system is considerably better than the Canadian health care system. Hell, one of my friend's has a fiancee who is down here because her parents were doctors fleeing the Canadian system.
But mostly incorrect. Most Canadians crossing the border do it for things such as... Laser eye surgery, dentistry, and so forth. None of those things are covered under our system.
Waiting lines for life-threatening, or "important" surgeries aren't weeks-long, and as long as you're above room temperature, you're going to get life-critical treatment. My grandfather, who is 82 had a heart attack last month. The same day, he had surgery, got his arteries fixed, and has been up and around since. The line was four hours.
We pay less, we live longer, we don't file for bankrupcy because we can't pay our medical bills... Not sure how you can define your system as "Better." At least, for anyone who isn't a multi-millionaire.
scarykitties on 8/10/2009 at 23:50
Quote Posted by Swiss Mercenary
we live longer
Well, to be fair, you probably eat better as a whole, too.
CCCToad on 9/10/2009 at 00:38
so if we ban McDonald's we'll solve the health care problem?
About as good an idea as any I've heard :)
SubJeff on 9/10/2009 at 00:55
succinctly describes the limits of your imagination as you have already made abundantly clear with your recent posting run well done
the_grip on 9/10/2009 at 00:59
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
A little bit, but my point is that doctors are paid for the combination of knowledge, skill and the burden of responsibility. I think that adds up to market value. Want to reduce the number of doctors? Reduce pay.
People will not study at university for a minimum of 5 years (and up to 7), have big loans to pay off, be expected to continue tough training for up to 15 years post-graduation, have massive professional responsibilities with strict ethical demands both in AND out of the job if they are not given a suitable financial incentive for all this. I'm not saying doctors only do the job for the love of money (God knows there are easier ways of making the same or more) but if you strip that away as well...
True, but I'm not saying pay should be reduced. I'm saying supply of doctors should *potentially* be increased (I'm more speculating here than anything, but I think it makes some sense). Increasing supply would logically reduce pay, and one way to increase supply is to loosen the restrictions that you posted (long schooling and residency, very expensive, large opportunity costs lost, etc.).
ilweran on 9/10/2009 at 09:56
Quote Posted by the_grip
I'm not sure it is inhumane or denying any kind of basic right.
I have no idea what the situation is in the US, but in the UK at least I can see that restricting healthcare for the elderly would possibly end up costing more through residential care - an example I would be familiar with through my job would be the elderly person who is caring for their spouse who has dementia. If the carer had restricted access to medical care you could end up with them both requiring residential care earlier then they may have done otherwise and the most likely scenario is that they would be separated.
