Thousands Of Elderly Patients Go Blind In Britain Due To Eye Surgery Rationing

[UCFWayne]

https://www.dailywire.com/news/45698/thousands-elderly-patients-go-blind-britain-due-ashe-schow

Healthcare rationing is a regular part of the United Kingdom, which has nationalized healthcare in a way Democrats in America want to bring here.



if we were to have a national healthcare service, rationing would have to take place. that is a simple fact.

 

[fried-chicken]

It's a good thing that in America everyone who needs surgery can get it.

 

[bqknight]

https://www.dailywire.com/news/45698/thousands-elderly-patients-go-blind-britain-due-ashe-schow

Healthcare rationing is a regular part of the United Kingdom, which has nationalized healthcare in a way Democrats in America want to bring here.



if we were to have a national healthcare service, rationing would have to take place. that is a simple fact.

You also realize that you can buy private health insurance in the U.K?

 

[fried-chicken]

You also realize that you can buy private health insurance in the U.K?

How dare you.

 

[NinjaKnight]

Don't worry, its not like 70% of all bankruptcies in the US are due to healthcare costs...oh wait they are.

Threads like these are why I just stick to insulting people. Wayne is one dumb fuker. This is almost as bad as the thread he started trying to prove the GOP wasn't racist...and it actually proved the exact opposite.

 

[Crazyhole]

You also realize that you can buy private health insurance in the U.K?

Weird. So private insurance is the solution to medical needs whereas government insurance leaves people to suffer. Who would have guessed.

 

[Crazyhole]

Weird. So private insurance is the solution to medical needs whereas government insurance leaves people to suffer. Who would have guessed.

This is seriously the greatest argument against single payer I've ever heard and it came from a proponent of it. It may as well have said "hey, if you want medical care, the government isnt the way to go".

 

[bqknight]

Weird. So private insurance is the solution to medical needs whereas government insurance leaves people to suffer. Who would have guessed.

No. For the vast majority of people - public insurance works well.

I’m a fan of of “Medicare for all who want it”.

 

[fried-chicken]

Weird. So private insurance is the solution to medical needs whereas government insurance leaves people to suffer. Who would have guessed.

 

[UCFKnight85]

No. For the vast majority of people - public insurance works well.

I’m a fan of of “Medicare for all who want it”.

The UK had a week last year in which 17,000 people had to wait in the back of an ambulance for an hour or more, with emergencies, since there was overcrowding and not enough personnel to see the people coming in.

That's ONE week.

https://www.theguardian.com/society...t-in-nhs-ambulances-waiting-for-hospital-care

If you do a search there is story after story regarding rationing of care, wait lines, needed surgeries being delayed a year or more, etc. What good is paying for any form of medical care if you can't even be seen in the time of an emergency?

So the point stands. If you're in a system where you're going to be gouged in taxes to pay for some government health care system, but still have to pay huge sums out of pocket for private insurance just to be seen for routine care, why even have that system at all?

 

[sk8knight]

I have to wonder what comes of innovation in the medical and pharmaceutical industries if we go to single payer in this country. Will we still see 44% of the world’s pharmaceutical research spending coming from the US? Will we still see the lion’s share of medical articles coming from the US? How do we incentivize innovation in a socialist system that will have its hands full dealing with the variety and volume of patients that we have?

 

[Crazyhole]

I have to wonder what comes of innovation in the medical and pharmaceutical industries if we go to single payer in this country. Will we still see 44% of the world’s pharmaceutical research spending coming from the US? Will we still see the lion’s share of medical articles coming from the US? How do we incentivize innovation in a socialist system that will have its hands full dealing with the variety and volume of patients that we have?

For a while yes, because it will take a few years until we have to seriously raise taxes. Big Pharma will get even richer because their buddies in Washington are fine with just printing money to pay the bill. After a while though, people will see the level of debt that's being accrued and the gov't will raise taxes. That'll just piss people off and eventually the govt will have no choice but price controls.

 

[fried-chicken]

The UK had a week last year in which 17,000 people had to wait in the back of an ambulance for an hour or more, with emergencies, since there was overcrowding and not enough personnel to see the people coming in.

That's ONE week.

https://www.theguardian.com/society...t-in-nhs-ambulances-waiting-for-hospital-care

If you do a search there is story after story regarding rationing of care, wait lines, needed surgeries being delayed a year or more, etc. What good is paying for any form of medical care if you can't even be seen in the time of an emergency?

So the point stands. If you're in a system where you're going to be gouged in taxes to pay for some government health care system, but still have to pay huge sums out of pocket for private insurance just to be seen for routine care, why even have that system at all?

I was at a park and a kid dislocated his knee. His parents didn't want to call an ambulance because it was $800. They pulled a pick up truck up to the playground and tried to move him into it. After a few attempts and excruciating cries from the boy they called an ambulance.

That sound like a good experience? Parents trying not to get financially crushed so they are looking to load a kid with a dislocated knee into the bed of a truck?

 

[fried-chicken]

I have to wonder what comes of innovation in the medical and pharmaceutical industries if we go to single payer in this country. Will we still see 44% of the world’s pharmaceutical research spending coming from the US? Will we still see the lion’s share of medical articles coming from the US? How do we incentivize innovation in a socialist system that will have its hands full dealing with the variety and volume of patients that we have?

You don't understand where drug innovation comes from because you're uninformed.

 

[fried-chicken]

For a while yes, because it will take a few years until we have to seriously raise taxes. Big Pharma will get even richer because their buddies in Washington are fine with just printing money to pay the bill. After a while though, people will see the level of debt that's being accrued and the gov't will raise taxes. That'll just piss people off and eventually the govt will have no choice but price controls.

I already explained drug innovation to you and you're being willfully ignorant.

 

[fried-chicken]

@sk8knight @Crazyhole

Again here's where drug research really comes from with a source to back it up.

Allow me to educate you. @Crazyhole

Nearly 100% of drug research is funded by the government, either state or federal.

Then there's the testing phases which are carried out primarily by research universities.

Once a company knows a drug can make them money they are given (mostly for FREE) the research and they help the drug get approved and distributed.

Capitalism is nothing to our drug development process other than when a company knows a drug can work and make them money they profit off of the government spending that created the drug.

Research and development of drugs is too expensive and too risky for companies to internalize. So they rely on... wait for it... socialized research.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK50972/

Drug companies are nothing more than glorified marketing and distribution firms for drug science that is paid for with taxes. They get the research for free and then get it out to the public.

 

[Crazyhole]

@sk8knight @Crazyhole

Again here's where drug research really comes from with a source to back it up.



Drug companies are nothing more than glorified marketing and distribution firms for drug science that is paid for with taxes. They get the research for free and then get it out to the public.

As long as we are going down that road, you do realize that health insurance companies don't make anything directly off of premiums too, right?

 

[UCFKnight85]

@sk8knight @Crazyhole

Again here's where drug research really comes from with a source to back it up.



Drug companies are nothing more than glorified marketing and distribution firms for drug science that is paid for with taxes. They get the research for free and then get it out to the public.

lol that's not even remotely true. Not only did you link to a study that didn't even cover the full scope of the biomedical research field, you somehow misread what was actually said.

Here's an article on where funding comes from and it's not even remotely what you're claiming:

In a Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) study published in January 2010, the largest study to date to attempt to quantify U.S. funding of biomedical research by the pharmaceutical industry, government, and private sources, researchers estimate that U.S. biomedical research currently stands at about over $100 billion annually.


The pharmaceutical industry is the largest contributor to funding research, funding over 60 percent. The government contributes to about a third of the costs, with foundations, advocacy organizations and individual donors responsible for the remaining investments.

https://www.thebalance.com/who-funds-biomedical-research-2663193

 

[goodknightfl]

View embedded media

Of course he has prostrate problems so serious that he is called #1.

 

[fried-chicken]

lol that's not even remotely true. Not only did you link to a study that didn't even cover the full scope of the biomedical research field, you somehow misread what was actually said.

Here's an article on where funding comes from and it's not even remotely what you're claiming:

In a Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) study published in January 2010, the largest study to date to attempt to quantify U.S. funding of biomedical research by the pharmaceutical industry, government, and private sources, researchers estimate that U.S. biomedical research currently stands at about over $100 billion annually.


The pharmaceutical industry is the largest contributor to funding research, funding over 60 percent. The government contributes to about a third of the costs, with foundations, advocacy organizations and individual donors responsible for the remaining investments.

https://www.thebalance.com/who-funds-biomedical-research-2663193

The topic was on innovation and the study I posted covered that at some point private companies pump money into drugs. That point is once the drugs are already proven and a profit can be made.

 

[fried-chicken]

As long as we are going down that road, you do realize that health insurance companies don't make anything directly off of premiums too, right?

We're not going down that path. The claim was that innovation would stop under "socialism" and the truth is that nearly 100% of drugs start in government funded labs. "Socialism" is the cause of our innovation not the enemy of it.

 

[sk8knight]

We're not going down that path. The claim was that innovation would stop under "socialism" and the truth is that nearly 100% of drugs start in government funded labs. "Socialism" is the cause of our innovation not the enemy of it.

I didn’t claim it would stop. I said that I wondered what would happen under the new system. I would bet a good amount of money that the research dollars would dry up once the system started failing under its own weight. Hopefully that wouldn’t happen, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Also, you cherry-picked an article that supports your point. Here’s another that shows that industry accounts for more than 60% and up to 70% of R&D. Others show that NIH and other research accounts for basic science targeted while industry focuses on applied science. Bottom line is they are partners, but it is blatantly false to state that the federal government funds research more than industry and also wrong to state that federal agencies research the drugs and treatments themselves.

 

[fried-chicken]

I didn’t claim it would stop. I said that I wondered what would happen under the new system. I would bet a good amount of money that the research dollars would dry up once the system started failing under its own weight. Hopefully that wouldn’t happen, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Also, you cherry-picked an article that supports your point. Here’s another that shows that industry accounts for more than 60% and up to 70% of R&D. Others show that NIH and other research accounts for basic science targeted while industry focuses on applied science. Bottom line is they are partners, but it is blatantly false to state that the federal government funds research more than industry and also wrong to state that federal agencies research the drugs and treatments themselves.

Cherry picked from the NIH, lol.

 

[UCFKnight85]

The topic was on innovation and the study I posted covered that at some point private companies pump money into drugs. That point is once the drugs are already proven and a profit can be made.

So basically you posted something totally false, got your ass handed to you, and you’re now changing the scope and subject

 

[fried-chicken]

So basically you posted something totally false, got your ass handed to you, and you’re now changing the scope and subject

No, sk8 said no new drugs would be invented under "socialism". I said 100% of drugs are invented by government funded entities. Once the drugs prove profitable drug companies take over. That's accurate you dumb pile of dicks.

 

[UCFKnight85]

No, sk8 said no new drugs would be invented under "socialism". I said 100% of drugs are invented by government funded entities. Once the drugs prove profitable drug companies take over. That's accurate you dumb pile of dicks.

Do you even know what biometric research is, dipshit? It encompasses all research within the industry and the majority of that is research on drugs. The article to the study that I linked literally said that 60%+ of all biomedical research comes from the private industry.

You are quite literally inventing your own, hilariously wrong and stupid "facts" here since you're again entrenched yourself in a bad position and need a way out.

 

[fried-chicken]

Do you even know what biometric research is, dipshit? It encompasses all research within the industry and the majority of that is research on drugs. The article to the study that I linked literally said that 60%+ of all biomedical research comes from the private industry.

You are quite literally inventing your own, hilariously wrong and stupid "facts" here since you're again entrenched yourself in a bad position and need a way out.

Yeah no shit, ***once the innovation is complete*** private firms step in and pay for the testing and get drugs through the FDA.

To say no new drugs innovations will happen absent capitalism is a joke because the government is already responsible for 100% of drug innovations.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Yeah no shit, ***once the innovation is complete*** private firms step in and pay for the testing and get drugs through the FDA.

To say no new drugs innovations will happen absent capitalism is a joke because the government is already responsible for 100% of drug innovations.

Jesus Christ. I don't know if you're just being another terrible troll or you're just this dumb, but please go re-read the article that presents actual facts from actual studies on this topic, then re-read this first sentence that I put in front of your nose for you:

The pharmaceutical industry is the largest contributor to funding research, funding over 60 percent. The government contributes to about a third of the costs, with foundations, advocacy organizations and individual donors responsible for the remaining investments.

 

[fried-chicken]

You're impossible. It's still research if they are conducting studies to get FDA approval but it's not innovation.

It's exactly the way I said it was you loopy dope.

 

[fried-chicken]

https://abcnews.go.com/WNT/YourMoney/story?id=129651

This article is the norm.

The government spent $500 Million developing the drug then gave the rights away. Pharmaceuticals company sells $7 billion worth of the drug, including charging the very government who developed it $700 million for its use on Medicare recipients.

Oh why oh why is the American medical system broken? How will we ever get by without companies innovating? It's all a lie.

 

[UCFKnight85]

https://abcnews.go.com/WNT/YourMoney/story?id=129651

This article is the norm.

lol! You give me one single article about a drug from 1993 as your "proof"? This entire anecdote, complete with biased reporting, represents $454M when I've already shown you that the total research funding in this country is $100B annually, and of that, the private industry foots nearly $60B of the funding.

 

[fried-chicken]

lol! You give me one single article about a drug from 1993 as your "proof"? This entire anecdote, complete with biased reporting, represents $454M when I've already shown you that the total research funding in this country is $100B annually, and of that, the private industry foots nearly $60B of the funding.

Just piss off then. You don't even know what point you're trying to make anymore and you don't give a shit about being accurate.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Just piss off then. You don't even know what point you're trying to make anymore and you don't give a shit about being accurate.

Lol look at you getting so butthurt. Are you getting tired of having “socialized medicine is totally feasible” dunked on so much?

 

[fried-chicken]

Lol look at you getting so butthurt. Are you getting tired of having “socialized medicine is totally feasible” dunked on so much?

You have no idea what you're arguing do you.

 

[UCFWayne]

You also realize that you can buy private health insurance in the U.K?

but i thought that single payer health care was the answer? are you here to tell me that single payer didnt fix the uk's health problems? im shocked.*

 

[ChrisKnight06]

Jesus Christ yall make this so painful for me. I'm genuinely trying to hear both sides.

FCs Claim: Gov is responsible for the INITIAL research. Determining the viability of a drug. The innovation. Private companies then come in and run with it once it is seen there is real potential.

85: Provides data showing private companies contribute 60% of the total cost from beginning to end.

At the very least we can all agree it's a partnership. Comparable to defense and aerospace spending and tech right?

I would agree it's more likely that govt would spend on the exploratory research than a for profit company would. That seems logical to me and exactly why public private partnerships are necessary. The reasonable debate is where do the scales tip? Why the fuk can't that be a reasonable discussion? Where is my thought process wrong?

 

[btbones]

No. For the vast majority of people - public insurance works well.

I’m a fan of of “Medicare for all who want it”.

That sounds good . Let’s have all those folks sign up for it . Once that cost is figured up , that group can pay all taxes and costs associated with it .

 

[UCFWayne]

Jesus Christ yall make this so painful for me. I'm genuinely trying to hear both sides.

FCs Claim: Gov is responsible for the INITIAL research. Determining the viability of a drug. The innovation. Private companies then come in and run with it once it is seen there is real potential.

85: Provides data showing private companies contribute 60% of the total cost from beginning to end.

At the very least we can all agree it's a partnership. Comparable to defense and aerospace spending and tech right?

I would agree it's more likely that govt would spend on the exploratory research than a for profit company would. That seems logical to me and exactly why public private partnerships are necessary. The reasonable debate is where do the scales tip? Why the fuk can't that be a reasonable discussion? Where is my thought process wrong?

alot of it is noise. however i have noticed that one side tends to make arguments with emotion and the otherside with stats.

why do my taxes keep going up but i still see roads with pot holes? why do my taxes keep going up by the education system continues to flounder? the dmv has always been terrible. florida is still having a problem with the sunpass/epass toll system. it seems like every time the gov gets involved, it causes problems.

idk about you but i dont want the gov involved in my personal healthcare because a record of past failures in numerous areas.

 

[DaShuckster]

i dont want the gov involved in my personal healthcare because a record of past failures in numerous areas.

How about your Granny on Medicare? Is she okay with it being taken away?

You act like your healthcare is somehow free of any outside 'interference.' Maybe you are independently wealthy and don't have health insurance. If that's the case, this doesn't apply to you. But the vast majority of Americans with health insurance are well-aware that their insurance provider calls A LOT of the shots when it comes to their health care.

 

[fried-chicken]

We need to take away Medicare from old people and help them find a private insurance company that way they can get better coverage. Old people are clamoring for that right? Oh, they're not? They love Medicare and get pissed if people try to change it? Huh. That doesn't add up to what republicans tell me.