Rand Paul headed to Canada for hernia surgery (1 Viewer)

Moderator #1

DavidM

Admin Emeritus
VIP Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 1999
Messages
45,030
Ratings
17,430
Online

Goatman Saint

Subscribing Member
VIP Subscribing Member
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Apr 18, 1999
Messages
20,005
Ratings
16,313
Age
47
Location
Coalinga CA
Online
Lol. Like for example, when people deliver babies back then, you call some lady who's done it b4 and hope it goes well. Today, you do a bunch of screening, counseling to avoid stuff that can harm your babies, etc, to ensure the best possible outcome.

You're really asking about medical advancement?
Well, unless you’re in Texas where the maternal death rate is close to subsaharan Africa.
 

N.O.Bronco

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Messages
8,889
Ratings
7,240
Offline
Lol. Like for example, when people deliver babies back then, you call some lady who's done it b4 and hope it goes well. Today, you do a bunch of screening, counseling to avoid stuff that can harm your babies, etc, to ensure the best possible outcome.

You're really asking about medical advancement?
He’s not asking, he’s just trolling.

There’s a term for what he’s now doing, it’s a dumb term, but to borrow his phrasing, it articulates very clearly the specific type of trolling he is engaging in:



Sealioning (also spelled sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment which consists of pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility.[1][2][3] The troll pretends ignorance and feigns politeness, so that if the target is provoked into making an angry response, the troll can then act as the aggrieved party.[4][5] Sealioning can be performed by a single troll or by multiple ones acting in concert.[6] The technique of sealioning has been compared to the Gish gallop and metaphorically described as a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings.[6]
I don’t mind answering questions, but if your response to someone else’s response is simply to move the goalposts by demanding new answers to a new category of questions, refuse to acknowledge and engage in what was just provided to you, throw underhanded insults into the mix, and this is a pattern of behavior demonstrated again and again over a period of months, it’s clear you aren’t seeking to participate in a respectable manner. Which onthurday clearly is not at this point.
 
Banned #83
Joined
Sep 18, 2002
Messages
1,339
Ratings
1,195
Age
36
Offline
Lol. Like for example, when people deliver babies back then, you call some lady who's done it b4 and hope it goes well. Today, you do a bunch of screening, counseling to avoid stuff that can harm your babies, etc, to ensure the best possible outcome.

You're really asking about medical advancement?
Everything that uses technology has skyrocketed in price? Nah
 
Joined
Nov 3, 2001
Messages
327
Ratings
425
Offline
Everything that uses technology has skyrocketed in price? Nah
Sure, prices can come down. An OB may have been paid thousands in the 90's but are paid a few hundred dollars for the same C-section today. Prices do go down as efficiency are found. But there are more tests with more medical advancements. Again, the cost of getting a midwife vs all the tests done today. You ask why it costs so much in the 60's vs today. Simple answer even a child can understand, yeah?
 

N.O.Bronco

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Messages
8,889
Ratings
7,240
Offline
Onthurdays overriding critical flaw, besides being a deliberate troll that has no real interest in the discussions he barges into, is the fallacy that there are these one size fits all libertarian Econ 101 shorthands that you can apply across the spectrum of the healthcare market.

Some technology helps reduce costs, like a new tech that has less expensive inputs but performs the same function, others, many, are often predicated on being new treatments that are inevitably going to increase costs or costlier improvements on older tech that functions at a greater level. If there is no treatment for X disease and suddenly there is one, now there is a cost introduced in a space and associated to a new branch of medicine treating a disease that before there was nothing.

It’s not that hard to grasp.
 

Goatman Saint

Subscribing Member
VIP Subscribing Member
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Apr 18, 1999
Messages
20,005
Ratings
16,313
Age
47
Location
Coalinga CA
Online
Or, as is the case with more than a few medications are really no more effective than what has been used since the 1950s, yet every so often they change something just enough to make it the next great thing and charge 500% more.
 

N.O.Bronco

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Messages
8,889
Ratings
7,240
Offline
Or, as is the case with more than a few medications are really no more effective than what has been used since the 1950s, yet every so often they change something just enough to make it the next great thing and charge 500% more.
Oh that's definitely also true.

I wrote in a long policy paper I did in a public policy class years back about how several dermatologist medications were literally just including something like ten cent tea tree wipes or moderate changes to non active ingredients and branding it as a "new formula" that would be sold for $60 more on top of the old price to people(cribbing the inspiration from a This American Life piece over a decade ago about a similar story). Or perverting the use of the orphan drug program to protect incredibly inflated prices for drugs that would of otherwise lost their patent and qualify for generic manufacturing.

Which also gets to the perverse relationship that many insurers have with care providers and drug manufacturers, which is rarely the sort of negotiating-on-my-behalf relationship people expect( I can speak to this from both academic and personal experience). And then shoved in between that relationship with drug companies are PBM's that were once heralded as a free-market way to drive down drug prices but have largely become a middle-man taking a cut off the top, tied up with a number of pharmacy chains and drug manufacturers, that push people into more expensive brand medications and have actually done a number of things to drive prices up, not down.

And all of that is wrapped up in the collective problem that there is not a powerful enough entity to really negotiate down the price of prescription drugs and that is in part why America by far pays the most, private or public, for prescription drugs. And so far the only solution that has been demonstrated to bring prices down in line with most developed nations is price controls and/or a mechanism to drastically increase the leverage in drug price negotiations.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



Saints Headlines (The Advocate)

Headlines

Top Bottom