Re: OT: A woman for president!

gringo <gringo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:grtsj.72546$Mu4.57119@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

nothermark's comments:
Single payer done right would cover everybody and save money
according to the folks who crunch numbers. You would shut out the
for profit hospitals and settle on reasonable prices for drugs. The
problem is that is doesn't leave money for political contributions.

I'm intrigued by the above.

Why shouldn't a hospital profit? Why should any other entity that fronts
the cost of bring any service or product to the free market be allowed
to thrive by making a profit?

Regardless of where the money comes from that provides the cost to build
a hospital, people that front the money to build them, staff them, and
to provide equipment and supplies in them, expect a return on what they
invest.

If you decided to open any business under the sun, and you put your
money into it, are you going to sit there and sell those goods or
services at cost?

Why do people think that healthcare should be free, or provided at cost
at most? It's ludicrous to expect that anyone who invests in a career or
in business for the providing of healthcare by any definition, should do
it at cost.

Does this mindset orginate because some consider healthcare to be a
basic need that we are all "entitled" to?

I think it's silly to pay $35,000 for a new car. Maybe we should call on
the Government to pass a law to force automobile manufacturers to sell
all cars at cost. After all, in the year 2008, it's hard to live life
without a car, unless you live in a very urban area and can take mass
transit everywhere you might need to go.

Maybe it ought to be illegal for food stores to make a profit. We can't
survive without food, can we?

Maybe the next time I buy some real estate, I'll try that argument. My
intention will be to provide shelter for someone who needs it, so I
shouldn't be forced to pay market value for that home. I should get it
at only what it cost to build it. If it was built two decades ago, I
should be able to get it at a steal. After all, what makes it right that
it is worth more 20 years after it was built. It's used.

I'm going to fill up my pickup in the morning before I leave town, and
I'm going to demand that I only pay the bare minimum cost for the
diesel, because fuel for my truck is a basic necessity, and I shouldn't
have to pay more than cost for it.

See how ridiculous those kind of arguments can get?

Other than those hospitals specifically designated as charity hospitals,
funded solely by private contributions, the rest are nothing short of
groups of people that banded together to provide an establishment to
serve the public in the business of providing healthcare, but make no
mistake, they are in business, and they deserve to make a profit.

It doesn't matter what people invest their money in to make a living.
Whether one has a hot dog cart, or a high-rise in Manhatten, they
deserve to profit from their investments and choices to go into
business. I've yet to meet a soul that expected to make nothing at all,
ever, when they paid millions of dollars to buy land, place a building
on it, and serve the public at some cost, or in any capacity.

Contrary to popular belief, there are very few hospitals that make
immense profits. Without monetary assistance from the Federal
Government, States, Counties, and Towns they are located in, most would
have closed the doors years ago.

Gringo's portion:
Absolutely correct. Are you aware that all that R&ED touted by
pharmaceuticals as the reason for selling a 20 cent pill for $6 is for
the most part paid for by the American taxpayer? Government
institutions do the research, discover the cures, and then _*give*_
the new drug to a drug company!

Gee, if this was remotely true, then why is it that we are seeing some
of the drug companies being hand slapped for falsified or manipulated
research and trials?

I guess they are taking the heat as patsies for the Government.

Look, I happen to feel that the drug companies need to be reigned in on
a leash. I don't allow myself to be puppets of the drug companies, and
in fact dumped a long time Physician with a tongue lashing that a sailor
would blush if he had heard it, and that also completely embarrased my
wife, and he got it because he refused to prescribe generics that were
available at a cost of less than $100 a month, in favor of a drug that I
discovered to cost $600 a month, and that had not been on the market for
more than a month.

I make it clear to any doctor I see, that I am no one's pin cushion, and
I absolutely will not take a drug that has not been widely taken by the
populace first. I in fact prefer generics over brand names. Every time I
am prescribed a new drug, I look it up to see what it is, how it works,
the side effects, how long it has been on the market, and above all,
what it costs. He knew that, and yet he still tried to slip it past me.
The *** wasn't even apologetic when I faced him with what he knew
would be the outcome when I discovered the truth.

I'm under no illusion that my decision to seek treatment will impact his
wallet one bit, but at least I will not be placing any of MY dollars in
it any longer.

I don't know where you get the idea that the Government does the drug
research. They certainly make approval or denial decisions by evaluating
the drugs submitted to the Government for approval, but the development
and research is widely performed by the private sector, and that has
been the case for decades.

My wife had involved herself in clinical trials many times over the
years, and every check we deposited was written by the drug manufacturer
to her.

Not one was written by the Government.

~Tony~
--
http//truckerscorner.forumlands.com/

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
.

Loading