Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

My point is those items are not "free". They are a payment, other than cash, for services rendered to the Uni.

 feeder wrote:
My point is those items are not "free". They are a payment, other than cash, for services rendered to the Uni.

How is job-related benefits "out of someone else's pocket" ? -asked and answered.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 feeder wrote:
My point is those items are not "free". They are a payment, other than cash, for services rendered to the Uni.

How is job-related benefits "out of someone else's pocket" ? -asked and answered.

What is it about job-related benefits that you find objectionable?

 feeder wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 feeder wrote:
My point is those items are not "free". They are a payment, other than cash, for services rendered to the Uni.

How is job-related benefits "out of someone else's pocket" ? -asked and answered.

What is it about job-related benefits that you find objectionable?

Where in any of that quoted response to Dogma am I saying I object to job-related benefits? Seriously, find the words. Stating they're coming "out of someone else's pocket" is a statement of fact, not an objection.

And with regards to that, your initial question, it's been asked and answered.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 feeder wrote:
My point is those items are not "free". They are a payment, other than cash, for services rendered to the Uni.

How is job-related benefits "out of someone else's pocket" ? -asked and answered.

Actually in many cases these kind of benefits are beneficial to the employer as well as the employee.

Example, Half price hotel rooms.
Any business with high fixed costs benefits from selling its products/services at below cost price instead of not selling them at all.

To put it in monetary terms, if a hotel needs to sell rooms at $100 a night (because they cost $60 a night to keep in existence) and it can't, it is better off offering them to staff at $50 a night than getting nothing. The staff actually are putting money in the hotel owner's pocket. Instead of losing $60 a night he loses only $10.

Employee discount cards are the same way. I have a love hate relationship with mine, because on the one hand "discounts, yes" and on the other "I'm paying my employer for stuff I need/want with the money they give me for working here god damn it I've been boondoggled!"

Red Plenty by Martin Spufford is a fascinating fictionalised account of the rise and fall of the Soviet economy in the 1950s to 1970s.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Red-Plenty-Francis-Spufford/dp/0571225241/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1472503478&sr=8-1&keywords=red+plenty

The blurb alone is easily on of the best blurbs I've seen in years *adds to reading list*. Downside. I'm never going to get to all these books about China at this rate.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 feeder wrote:
My point is those items are not "free". They are a payment, other than cash, for services rendered to the Uni.

How is job-related benefits "out of someone else's pocket" ? -asked and answered.

What is it about job-related benefits that you find objectionable?

Where in any of that quoted response to Dogma am I saying I object to job-related benefits? Seriously, find the words. Stating they're coming "out of someone else's pocket" is a statement of fact, not an objection.

And with regards to that, your initial question, it's been asked and answered.

Edit: Nevermind.

 sebster wrote:

This doesn't mean unfettered capitalism is answer to all our problems, of course, but there is a reason that the reality based community has chosen capitalism tempered by government as their starting point.

The reason being that they kill anyone who poses a serious threat to capitalism. There is a long and successful history of crushing unions, workers' movements and anti-colonial movements. By "reality-based community" you mean smug liberals who believe their reign will be eternal.

 sebster wrote:

200,000 years of humans providing labour. 300 years of capitalism organising that labour, which just happen to be the 300 years with the greatest growth in the size of capital. Coincidence!

Of course capital can't grow when it doesn't exist. Of course there is a vast growth in capital when capitalism uses far more resources than is necessary. Of course there is more capital when you have dozens of car manufacturers making dozens of cars each. That requires a lot of factories. Capitalism has driven enormous increases in productive power and that's part of common criticism of it. More is made than is needed and people still live in want because things are made for the sake of profit rather than for the sake of use. Fewer need to work to fulfil the needs of entire countries than ever before yet we all must work so we can buy what we need to live.

You've figured out that capitalism has conquered the world and use this stunning insight to argue that capitalism is therefore a good thing.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
The link was not a blanket endorsement or detraction of Milton Friedman's cataglogue of work, but was posted because the video was just an extraordinarily simple, yet concise presentation of the free market dynamics inherent superiority. It's nothing more.

That you sold by pointing out that Friedman was a nobel laureate. And when someone does that it's worth pointing out that while Friedman is still treated as something of a saint among rightwing pretend economists, his actual contributions to the field of economics are mixed at best.

It's funny that everyone knows that economics and politics are hopelessly mixed, but they just forget that when it comes to economists who agree with their own politics. Friedman is in a sense no different to someone like Paul Krugman, both of them followed a career path of success in economics that opened doors in to media and punditry, where they have since expressed their openly partisan political views, trying to use their economic cred to make those views appear more factual than they might really be. The difference isn't just left vs right, though. The real difference is that Krugman's economics work remains a foundational part of international trade, whereas Friedman's work, all except the quantity theory of money, has been rejected, which much of it now being very obviously bad at its foundations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
Where in any of that quoted response to Dogma am I saying I object to job-related benefits? Seriously, find the words. Stating they're coming "out of someone else's pocket" is a statement of fact, not an objection.

It's a strange statement of fact though, when making it about insurance. The whole point of insurance is that it comes out of someone else's pocket.

I mean, I don't like employer provided healthcare, I think it's hopelessly inefficient precisely because it adds the employer as a middleman between the provider and the recipient.... but the fact that it comes out of someone else's pocket is just not an issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rosebuddy wrote:
The reason being that they kill anyone who poses a serious threat to capitalism. There is a long and successful history of crushing unions, workers' movements and anti-colonial movements. By "reality-based community" you mean smug liberals who believe their reign will be eternal.

Sure there's been a lot of ugly parts to capitalism. The gilded age didn't go quietly, and even today there are conflicts albeit on a much more limited scale.

But to claim that 'they' have killed anyone who seriously threatened capitalism is deluded fantasy. There were battles with unions, but they didn't end with the unionists being lined up in the streets and shot. They ended with legitimate unions that worked for and delivered improved rights to employees.

You are falling for the same thinking like so many crusted on socialists before you - that any criticism of the existing capitalist system is sufficient criticism to reject the system entirely.

Of course capital can't grow when it doesn't exist.

So you're actually going with the 'coincidence' argument? Wow.

You've figured out that capitalism has conquered the world and use this stunning insight to argue that capitalism is therefore a good thing.

No, I've made the observation that there is vastly less poverty under managed capitalism than under any other system we've tried. This observation is hardly insightful or new, it's actually really obvious, and very old.

The only strange thing is that there remains a bunch of people who pretend it isn't true, or try to talk around it.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Evidently there is no competitive market as the Fed government won't permit other entities to sell a similar product. If you have a government monopoly you can set the price. Thanks Obama.

There isn't a government sanctioned monopoly on Epipens, just a nearly de facto one.

The FDA settled with Mylan to allow generics nearly 2 years ago. Every very similar competitor so far has dropped the ball somehow - one didn't do enough research before release and was rejected by the FDA, and another got recalled. Even despite that, you can right now get Adrenaclick for about $70 a dose, or if you want to do a little more work, you can get a prescription for epinephrine and just fill a syringe with it for a few bucks per dose.

However, if you want to shift the argument over to Obama dropping the public option - I'd be right there with you.

The FDA sets the conditions of the testing. Its a defacto monopoly. You have to love government monopolies and crony capitalism.
yes the price increases suck and are unconscionable. Thats what happens when there are no competitors.

You'd have to show me that the FDA stacked the testing in order to pick winners and losers in the marketplace, rather than to have testing prove the generics are safe, effective, and equivalent. Maybe that's happened, but I haven't seen that.

Sometimes there are some medications that simply don't get competitors by dint of various manufacturing peculiarities - like the flu vaccine, which is difficult and time consuming to manufacture, which means there are only a few companies who can afford to chase the profit left at the margins of a large R&D and production outlay. Yet do you see flu vaccines spiking in price? Not really. I think the invisible hand is invisible because it doesn't exist.

Anyway, no point in arguing it because if we follow this train long enough, we both agree anyway - we both want fully socialized healthcare iirc your previous posts.

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Evidently there is no competitive market as the Fed government won't permit other entities to sell a similar product. If you have a government monopoly you can set the price. Thanks Obama.

There isn't a government sanctioned monopoly on Epipens, just a nearly de facto one.

The FDA settled with Mylan to allow generics nearly 2 years ago. Every very similar competitor so far has dropped the ball somehow - one didn't do enough research before release and was rejected by the FDA, and another got recalled. Even despite that, you can right now get Adrenaclick for about $70 a dose, or if you want to do a little more work, you can get a prescription for epinephrine and just fill a syringe with it for a few bucks per dose.

However, if you want to shift the argument over to Obama dropping the public option - I'd be right there with you.

The FDA sets the conditions of the testing. Its a defacto monopoly. You have to love government monopolies and crony capitalism.
yes the price increases suck and are unconscionable. Thats what happens when there are no competitors.

You'd have to show me that the FDA stacked the testing in order to pick winners and losers in the marketplace, rather than to have testing prove the generics are safe, effective, and equivalent. Maybe that's happened, but I haven't seen that.

Sometimes there are some medications that simply don't get competitors by dint of various manufacturing peculiarities - like the flu vaccine, which is difficult and time consuming to manufacture, which means there are only a few companies who can afford to chase the profit left at the margins of a large R&D and production outlay. Yet do you see flu vaccines spiking in price? Not really. I think the invisible hand is invisible because it doesn't exist.

Anyway, no point in arguing it because if we follow this train long enough, we both agree anyway - we both want fully socialized healthcare iirc your previous posts.

The flu vaccine isn't a great example... it is, however, perfect example of crony capitalism (government award contracts worth billions), and those companies are obviously making serious bank.

But, with respect to FDA approval to new flu vaccines, it's the same process every year... only that the new strains of the virus is introduced. It can be dangerous, moreso than other types of vaccinations, but it's proven to save lives by several order of magnitude. Hence why the manufacturers are enjoying some for a liability shield by Congress.

Getting some new drug on the market to be one of the first to treat a disease... man, it's fething onerous.

My sister works for one of the major Clinical Research companies in the world... and these companies get oodles of cashola to help drug companies comply with FDB regulations.

It's been about five years, and she's still on the program about this new hepatitis treatment that appears to be a fething cure.

So, yes, the FDA does have a job to do. But, at times, they're their own worst enemy.

 whembly wrote:
Getting some new drug on the market to be one of the first to treat a disease... man, it's fething onerous.

It doesn't have to be as expensive as it is to bring drugs on to the market. Federal regulations aren't as effective as they should be, but that is only one part of the problem.
http://www.nature.com/news/busting-the-billion-dollar-myth-how-to-slash-the-cost-of-drug-development-1.20469

The not-for-profit in the article have put 6 new treatments on to the market, for $290 million. Normal process costs around a billion for a single drug. The company's results include combination treatments of existing drugs, but its also managed to get new drugs tested and put on the market for around $60 million from start to finish. The company thinks it could average $110m to $170m per new drug, even including the cost of failed drugs.

Now admittedly the company in question, DNDi, is using some methods that can't necessarily be scaled up to the industry as a whole. For instance they often form partnerships with drug labs who give them access to new chemicals that aren't economic for the labs because they only deal with diseases poor countries have. They get these chemicals on the cheap, while anything with commercial viability in the West is sold to major drug companies at a huge price. And because DNDi is small scale and not for profit it can generally negotiate much better terms with its partners, than those partners will charge to large, commercial operations.

But the work of DNDi has shown lots of places where existing drug companies can reform their practices to bring the cost per new drug way down. Dropping non-viable or un-needed drugs much earlier in the process. The other thing is to focus on drugs that have very clear needs rather than drugs that have slight benefits over existing medications. Having a clear need lowers the hurdles you need to jump to prove safety and efficacy, and it also results in drugs not being abandoned late in the process because they turned out to be no better than existing medications.

Anyhow, it's an interesting article, well worth a read.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Getting some new drug on the market to be one of the first to treat a disease... man, it's fething onerous.

It doesn't have to be as expensive as it is to bring drugs on to the market. Federal regulations aren't as effective as they should be, but that is only one part of the problem.
http://www.nature.com/news/busting-the-billion-dollar-myth-how-to-slash-the-cost-of-drug-development-1.20469

The not-for-profit in the article have put 6 new treatments on to the market, for $290 million. Normal process costs around a billion for a single drug. The company's results include combination treatments of existing drugs, but its also managed to get new drugs tested and put on the market for around $60 million from start to finish. The company thinks it could average $110m to $170m per new drug, even including the cost of failed drugs.

Now admittedly the company in question, DNDi, is using some methods that can't necessarily be scaled up to the industry as a whole. For instance they often form partnerships with drug labs who give them access to new chemicals that aren't economic for the labs because they only deal with diseases poor countries have. They get these chemicals on the cheap, while anything with commercial viability in the West is sold to major drug companies at a huge price. And because DNDi is small scale and not for profit it can generally negotiate much better terms with its partners, than those partners will charge to large, commercial operations.

But the work of DNDi has shown lots of places where existing drug companies can reform their practices to bring the cost per new drug way down. Dropping non-viable or un-needed drugs much earlier in the process. The other thing is to focus on drugs that have very clear needs rather than drugs that have slight benefits over existing medications. Having a clear need lowers the hurdles you need to jump to prove safety and efficacy, and it also results in drugs not being abandoned late in the process because they turned out to be no better than existing medications.

Anyhow, it's an interesting article, well worth a read.

That is a great article... thanks for sharing.

I wonder how hard it is to drop a study, even after sinking massive R&D into the process ?? Guess that's why they pay the decision makers the big bucks... eh?

A lot of the issues stem back to whether we as a society want to treat medical services and supplies as a commodity or an essential element. Historically, things like water, power, etc. have shown to be too important to treat as mere commodities and so require greater intervention and regulation. Medical care seems to be very similar- it is essential for survival and quality of life and doesn't allow the same options as non-essential commodities. You can shop around or choose not to buy an MP3 player, for example. Can't really do that with insulin if you are an insulin dependent diabetic- buy it or die. Likewise, there are severe societal costs for inadequate access.

I think that the right to equal access to healthcare, regardless of income or employment, will be the next constitutional amendment.

Might take years but I think it will come.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I think that the right to equal access to healthcare, regardless of income or employment, will be the next constitutional amendment.

Might take years but I think it will come.

That would be horrible.

I'd rather simply expand Medicare (single payer) for all age groups.

 whembly wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I think that the right to equal access to healthcare, regardless of income or employment, will be the next constitutional amendment.

Might take years but I think it will come.

That would be horrible.

I'd rather simply expand Medicare (single payer) for all age groups.

It would be horrible for all citizens to have equal access to healthcare regardless of their personal situation? I'm sorry but you are going to have to explain why.

 whembly wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I think that the right to equal access to healthcare, regardless of income or employment, will be the next constitutional amendment.

Might take years but I think it will come.

That would be horrible.

I'd rather simply expand Medicare (single payer) for all age groups.

How would constitutionally guaranteed healthcare be horrible?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I think that the right to equal access to healthcare, regardless of income or employment, will be the next constitutional amendment.

Might take years but I think it will come.

\

No.

We almost never amend the Constitution. Waiting until then means waiting decades if ever.
This is a budget allocation, not a Constitutional issue.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I think that the right to equal access to healthcare, regardless of income or employment, will be the next constitutional amendment.

Might take years but I think it will come.

That would be horrible.

I'd rather simply expand Medicare (single payer) for all age groups.

It would be horrible for all citizens to have equal access to healthcare regardless of their personal situation? I'm sorry but you are going to have to explain why.

First of all, you need to define equal access better.

By your statement, you are saying that anyone should walk into any clinic/hospital and get their care, because hypothetically it is a right.

Who's going to pay for it? Who pays the doc/pharmacists/nurses/technicians/janitors/electricity/IT infrastructure/building lease/property taxs/medications/equipment rental fees/administration/etc...

If theses entities won't get paid... what's to stop these people from leaving this industry if pay is reduced? Will the government step in and forbid people from leaving? (there's a term for this)

Also, if it's a right, then the government wouldn't be able to introduce end-of-life cost controls.

Also... I don't think you know... but, we sorta have something what I think you are trying to advocate... and that is for emergency treatments called EMTALA:

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) is a federal law that requires anyone coming to an emergency department to be stabilized and treated, regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay.

This is a big deal and by far, these organizations almost never get any reimbursements for this.

Hence why it's called "freecare" in the states. The organization I work for... has numerous community hospitals and a big academic campus. The academic hospitals (and a few community hospitals) has given freecare to over 50% of the visits that walks in the ED door.

Got a cold/infection? Go to the local ER to get some tylenol/anti-virus. Simply declare you cannot pay, and the entity is still required to treat you. The only bad thing about this is that you may have to wait awhile to be seen.

It's also important to remember that a constitutional amendment would do basically nothing as the government is not the obstacle here and constitutional provisions act as a limit on government power.

Frazzled is absolutely right- this is a budget issue and all about allocating finite resources.

 whembly wrote:

By your statement, you are saying that anyone should walk into any clinic/hospital and get their care, because hypothetically it is a right.

Who's going to pay for it? Who pays the doc/pharmacists/nurses/technicians/janitors/electricity/IT infrastructure/building lease/property taxs/medications/equipment rental fees/administration/etc...

If theses entities won't get paid... what's to stop these people from leaving this industry if pay is reduced? Will the government step in and forbid people from leaving? (there's a term for this)

Also, if it's a right, then the government wouldn't be able to introduce end-of-life cost controls.

Also... I don't think you know... but, we sorta have something what I think you are trying to advocate... and that is for emergency treatments called [url=https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-

All of that would be decided by the Supreme Court, just like normal Constitutional issues. No need to panic about the amendment.

I find Fraz's rejection much more compelling.

The difficulty with a Constitutional amendment is that that is an affirmative act. Other freedoms under the Bill of Rights are protections FROM government.


If one were going that route, I'd think the right to food and shelter would have a higher priority.

 Easy E wrote:

 whembly wrote:

By your statement, you are saying that anyone should walk into any clinic/hospital and get their care, because hypothetically it is a right.

Who's going to pay for it? Who pays the doc/pharmacists/nurses/technicians/janitors/electricity/IT infrastructure/building lease/property taxs/medications/equipment rental fees/administration/etc...

If theses entities won't get paid... what's to stop these people from leaving this industry if pay is reduced? Will the government step in and forbid people from leaving? (there's a term for this)

Also, if it's a right, then the government wouldn't be able to introduce end-of-life cost controls.

Also... I don't think you know... but, we sorta have something what I think you are trying to advocate... and that is for emergency treatments called [url=https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-

All of that would be decided by the Supreme Court, just like normal Constitutional issues. No need to panic about the amendment.

Not really... in fact, it'd be damn near impossible to enforce.

I find Fraz's rejection much more compelling.

Agreed. This is something Congress ought to deliberate.

 jmurph wrote:
A lot of the issues stem back to whether we as a society want to treat medical services and supplies as a commodity or an essential element. Historically, things like water, power, etc. have shown to be too important to treat as mere commodities and so require greater intervention and regulation. Medical care seems to be very similar- it is essential for survival and quality of life and doesn't allow the same options as non-essential commodities. You can shop around or choose not to buy an MP3 player, for example. Can't really do that with insulin if you are an insulin dependent diabetic- buy it or die. Likewise, there are severe societal costs for inadequate access.

Sure, and I get annoyed any time that health reformers talk about adding competition and consumer choice in to coverage. I don't fething know what treatment will work best for any ailment I get, the doctor knows that. Giving me a choice will just produce a confusion.

But the complicating factor is that there are necessary private sector elements. We don't have billion dollar investments to see if a new kind of system will produce better running water to our homes. But we do have billion dollar investments in new drugs and new treatments. There's a private sector element in healthcare that we can't ignore. The problem is that right now the system to reward that private element is quite dysfunctional.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:
How would constitutionally guaranteed healthcare be horrible?

I'm with whembly on this. It's one thing to have expanded Medicaid so that it covers all people. It's another thing entirely to include it in the constitution so that people are able to take court action against government to demand treatment for this and that.

Got a brain dead person that government realises they don't want to spend $150k a year on just keeping them there artificially breathing. Well if that family doesn't want to let go welcome to a long court process. Got a complex or novel disease where treatment would involve drugs that haven't been properly tested yet. Well don't use them and you could end up in court, do use them and you could end up in court.

You would end up with the Supreme Court having to make judgements on where adequate treatment begins and ends. And those judgements would need constant review as medical technology advances. It'd be a nightmare.

Just expand Medicaid.