Not that She Can’t…

It’s just that She Won’t.

Kathleen Sibelius, U.S. Secretary of Human Health and Resources, will not step in to save a dying child’s life.

While the authority has been directly written into Obama Care for her to do exactly that, she is stating that there are many “kids just as sick”.

So… all your kids who are sick should be prepared to die equally.  Even if they could be helped, which in this case 10-year old Sarah Murnaghan can be, they will be denied that help by Government Officials… not “the Evil Insurance Companies”, but Government Employees such as Kathleen Sibelius.  Very Progressive indeed.

One must ask “What if it were Mrs. Sibelius’ child?”

This is what happens when you put the power of Life and Death Medical decisions in the hands of Bureaucrats.

You are left with an answer you know to be true… while your loved one dies.

…it is apparently not worth the life of just one child Mr. President.

About Mike

Background is in Media with a little History Major thrown in just to be annoying. View all posts by Mike

18 responses to “Not that She Can’t…

  • thirdnews

    Either you are intentionally missing the point, really hate Drug companies, or both.

    Thank you for the manspeak –I tells me you’re a scared little boy

    You seem to be confusing a couple of issues. Free-trade and Fascism/Government Influence in the markets.

    No, if you reread my argument, I state the pharma industry isn’t what you, and most think it is.
    The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It deals with the subject at hand, not specifically the free market

    I’m still not sure we disagree on much. But let me try again. This example doesn’t change based on what is being traded… be it drugs, or Corn (grain) as Smith details.

    Ignoring that healthcare and medicine isn’t a widget we can’t live without, is why Obama was able to bring in health care reform. Oddly funny, Obamacare was Bush’s fault and everyone else who failed to address the issue

    In this case, when I speak of a subsidy, I’m talking about the one provided for by the American consumer who purchases the medication at the higher cost… whether or not they are paying taxes is irrelevant… to my very specific argument.

    Again, I argued that the subsidy is artificial, it does not exist but for the purpose of inflating prices, and it the devil in the detail of why pharma would never allow us to buy drugs from Canada.

    If the U.S. consumer were to be allowed to purchase drugs from Canada, they would be… paying lower prices.

    A given

    Using your accurate assertion that the drugs companies would not want to lower prices here (prices are “sticky”)… doesn’t matter as pricing pressure would be felt by market share moving to Canada at the lower price points. In other words, the companies would suffer a decrease in sales AND margin by keeping prices steady in the U.S. while not discontinuing Canada’s program of dictating prices. (This is where the problem becomes Canada’s, because their Health Care System lives precariously on the edge of fiscal insolvency.)

    Of course pricing pressure would decrease US sales but again, the oft-repeated fallacy that drug companies would be doomed without our serfdom isn’t accurate.

    As for Canada, again the ‘no other country can survive their health care burden’ mantra is something I can barely discuss when the author does not address that health care is provincially run.

    Addressing the percentages that Pharma pays in regard to R&D compared to Marketing… or cleaning bathrooms… or the Executives porn habit… is also irrelevant in terms of basic economics. A company has no obligation to spend it’s money in a way you see fit. It’s only obligation is to supply a product that creates a profit.

    True for a private company –drug companies are not. BTW, porn companies do take several tax incentives; ergo I want my porn free too.

    If they fail to do so they will fail. The market will take care of it… as it always does.

    Ya mean the world is fair? Aww, that’s sweet; all the lawyers can commit mass suicide

    If you want to argue that share holders and consumers may be disinclined to use the products of said company because of the behavior of the company… it is an argument worth entertaining. Assuming other variables are present allowing the principle of substitution… and this is where undue influence by government always seems to rear it’s ugly head.

    Yes, consumers can opt-out of insulin, or cancer drugs cause ya know, they are as optional as Viagra –wait, that will never work: men will never give that shit up. Who knew that penises will prevent companies from being punished for bad behavior?

    You ask “Why would Pharma stay in the game unless they could profit, and independently from the U.S.?” Good question… one we both cannot answer to your satisfaction, because they ARE NOT IN the game independent of the U.S. However you’re proving my point unintentionally. They would not stay in the business if they could not profit. This is why a subsidy is always self-evident whenever dictation of lower prices through force (government) is present.

    Holy crap, I don’t get if ‘black and white’ thinking is genetic but to think an industry that spends U.S. “2.5 times as much on marketing and administration as they do on research” would find find a cheaper way to advertise, and figure out that their ‘dependency’ on US subsidies is a failing model –lol

    It is also important to remember that Canada is an ally of the U.S. and basically declaring war on their Health System is not in our interest… at a minimum it would not be particularly healthy for relations.

    Is this a joke?

    Adding to this, the Drug Companies know what condition the Canadian Health System is in and cutting their nose off to spite their face was probably weighed as undesirable. You could finally offer that selling into markets at a loss has a small, ancillary benefit realized through economy of scale… assuming you had other markets delivering the margins you need, such as the U.S. You could even offer up the argument of public relations and the nightmare a company would suffer from ceasing to sell into certain markets… but you would have to have a very good spin machine to distract the population from the government dictating prices.

    Now , you want to tell me that pharma is in the business of charity –lol. “The global pharmaceutical industry has racked up fines of more than $11bn in the past three years for criminal wrongdoing, including withholding safety data and promoting drugs for use beyond their licensed conditions.” But they like to a giveaway a few doses and the press buys it up

    Finally, in regard to your underestimating my knowledge as to where drugs are manufactured… I am well aware that much of our drug supply is manufactured outside of the United States, everywhere from Isreal to Mexico. The quality control problems come from lax distribution monitoring. The supply chain becomes polluted, corrupted, whatever you’d like to call it. The fact that you can purchase any number of… say… Amoxicillin in Mexico at the local Pharamcia and only 20% of it will test for the correct dosage let alone the anti-biotic itself is well know and documented.

    “Clinical trials are increasingly undertaken in non-European, non-American, non-Developed World populations. There has been a huge shift towards clinical trials undertaken in India, sub-Saharan Africa, Eastern Europe and South America.”

    and

    “American companies which have manufacturing plants all over the world. We have to remember that drugs are crossing borders all the time. Pfizer, for example, said on its website last year that it had 60 manufacturing plants in 32 countries”.

    Sweet pea, the bottle you open up in the US is likely from the same manufacturing lot as the bottle opened in France, Canada… but that scare tactic is cute. You forgoed the classic Boo!

    Your complaint seems to be centered on government involvement and the influence the drug companies wield in return. On this we would agree that there is a problem. But the solution is not to apply MORE government to attempt a solution as it denies the very cause of the problem in the first place. The solution, instead, is to use the power of the press, and our voices, to educate the population. The press appears to be stuck in the mode of indoctrination… along with the government schools. We should probably start with these too right away.

    No, education doesn’t change the existing facts. Why do you think the 26 drug companies have collectively conspired to stay the hell out of China and South East Asia? The market has already presented a solution in that countries will follow their lead and ignore patent law, market cheaper drugs and eventually big pharma is going to have to rethink their model

    But like I said… the markets always work. They may not work as quickly as one would like, but they always work. It is our responsibility to keep government out of the markets… the markets will always try to influence government and while we can fight that through exposure we should never want the ability apply government force to fire, destroy, etc. a private company for doing what is not illegal. On the other hand it is entirely within our scope of responsibility to punish our politicians for such behavior. They are welcome to take the money, but the second the start handing out barriers to entry, taxpayer subsidies, special favors we may just not like, we need to move to fire them.

    How has that strategy worked out for you? I personally employ the CHOYN* market strategy, and I don’t care if you feel faint, a deal will be had.

    *Crush Hands On Your Nuts -it has never failed me but the CPR is embarrassing

    Like

  • thirdnews

    OK, first let’s start with the ‘we subsidized all the drugs in the world’ canard. Hmm, where did you find that fact -other than a drug company website?

    Like

    • Mike

      Reasonable challenge.
      I would refer the reader to Economics in One Lesson. It is availble on Amazon. Not that it is the definitive resource, but it is where all should start.
      When you have a market distortion, such as the dictation of prices to be paid vs. allowing the market to set the pricing levels, those who are subject to market forces purchasing the same products will necessarily subsidize those dictated. This is where the “canard” comes from. Of course, I would offer that it is not a canard as it is basic economics.
      Next…

      Like

      • thirdnews

        I would refer the challenger to the back of my hand; I’m asking for the data on the fact you quoted, not a lesson in the free market -Where is your source on the subsidy issue?

        Like

        • Mike

          Your welcome to slap me anytime. In this case it will require you to employ the Invisible Hand. (For the rest of you, that’s an Adam Smith reference… The Wealth of Nations is also available through Amazon. I should be getting a kick-back somewhere.)
          The subsidy is self-evident.
          And, for the record, I will challenge you to offer where my assertion on this specific issue has been ‘oft-repeated’.
          So there!

          Like

        • Mike

          I also detect an implication that I favor the Drug Companies… I do not care one way or the other. If I do favor them it would only be similar to Doctors and Bartenders. I tend to get along with those that lengthen the duration or enjoyment of my life.

          Like

          • thirdnews

            Of course, you’ like a spanking but the matter at hand first:

            The public is under the impression that the pharmaceutical industry is solely responsible for the products brought to market, and ergo, they should be left alone to profit from their enterprise. I’d agree, if that were remotely true.

            Unfortunately, the consumer/taxpayer subsidizes the research both here and abroad, often in state universities, (a double-whammy), and then manufacturers basically do a ‘Thomas Edison’.

            The pharmaceutical industry then bathes in more tax credits, exaggerated development costs, lawsuit and monopoly protection, whilst claiming it is hardly worth it -my ass

            BTW, they don’t send thousands of lobbyists to Washington, DC because they like the local hookers

            Like

            • Mike

              I understand all of that and don’t contest a word of it… for the most part.
              But let’s return to my assertion… which was simple in it’s construction. Isolating this one interaction, the Canadian Health Care system’s subsidization by the U.S. in terms of our paying inflated prices for drugs so they can dictate prices was in jeopardy during Bush’s second term. His Administration refused to allow the cross border sales from Canada into the United States. It was spun that the Evil Drug companies had “won” again because Bush was in their pocket, when in fact they won nothing. There was no “gain” for them to continue this specific practice. Had it been allowed it would’ve been Canada that had to reform it’s dictation practices if they wanted drugs their population needed. This would not necessarily be true of Europe due to carrying costs associated with geography, nor Mexico due to untrustworthy quality controls.
              And D.C. has OK Hookers…

              Like

              • thirdnews

                .. Isolating this one interaction, the Canadian Health Care system’s subsidization by the U.S. in terms of our paying inflated prices for drugs …

                First looking at the industry for just a foreign market POV is deceptive but what proof do you have that American taxpayers are subsidizing pharmaceuticals in Canada or elsewhere? Is your assumption based on what you think it costs to produce drugs? Or, the actual cost difference between our markets? Or is it he cost associated with spending “2.5 times as much on marketing and administration as they do on research”?

                In the Canadian market, prices are flat, they pay 100% less than we do, and our yearly price inflation is approx. 10%. Do you hear rumblings of pulling out of their market? So, do the numbers tell us we are subsidizing foreign markets, or that pharma is unable to control foreign governments?

                Why would pharma stay in the game unless they could profit, and independently from the US?

                His (Bush’s) Administration refused to allow the cross border sales from Canada into the United States. It was spun that the Evil Drug companies had “won” again because Bush was in their pocket, when in fact they won nothing. There was no “gain” for them to continue this specific practice.

                Factually, the pharmaceutical industry spent “$2.6 billion on lobbying activities from 1998 through 2012”. I’d say they get to play ball for that donation.

                I love when people naively postulate that ‘if only all foreign countries paid American drug pricing, our costs would deflate’. No Virginia, hookers and drug companies don’t ever lower their prices because you’re a really nice guy.

                Absolutely, there was a gain; how politically embarrassing would it to understand the actual costs VS. the collaborative governmental and industry profit cabal. Best exampled in the CBO’s conclusion that we are spending an extra “$112 billion over the coming decade” due to the 2006 fuck-the-taxpayers Medicare deal –I think that was the actual name

                Had it been allowed it would’ve been Canada that had to reform it’s dictation practices if they wanted drugs their population needed. This would not necessarily be true of Europe due to carrying costs associated with geography, nor Mexico due to untrustworthy quality controls.

                Please. Are you under the impression drugs are made here?

                Like

                • Mike

                  Either you are intentionally missing the point, really hate Drug companies, or both.

                  You seem to be confusing a couple of issues. Free-trade and Fascism/Government Influence in the markets.

                  I’m still not sure we disagree on much. But let me try again.

                  This example doesn’t change based on what is being traded… be it drugs, or Corn (grain) as Smith details.
                  In this case, when I speak of a subsidy, I’m talking about the one provided for by the American consumer who purchases the medication at the higher cost… whether or not they are paying taxes is irrelevant… to my very specific argument.

                  If the U.S. consumer were to be allowed to purchase drugs from Canada, they would be… paying lower prices.

                  Using your accurate assertion that the drugs companies would not want to lower prices here (prices are “sticky”)… doesn’t matter as pricing pressure would be felt by market share moving to Canada at the lower price points. In other words, the companies would suffer a decrease in sales AND margin by keeping prices steady in the U.S. while not discontinuing Canada’s program of dictating prices. (This is where the problem becomes Canada’s, because their Health Care System lives precariously on the edge of fiscal insolvency.)

                  Addressing the percentages that Pharma pays in regard to R&D compared to Marketing… or cleaning bathrooms… or the Executives porn habit… is also irrelevant in terms of basic economics. A company has no obligation to spend it’s money in a way you see fit. It’s only obligation is to supply a product that creates a profit. If they fail to do so they will fail. The market will take care of it… as it always does. If you want to argue that share holders and consumers may be disinclined to use the products of said company because of the behavior of the company… it is an argument worth entertaining. Assuming other variables are present allowing the principle of substitution… and this is where undue influence by government always seems to rear it’s ugly head.

                  You ask “Why would Pharma stay in the game unless they could profit, and independently from the U.S.?” Good question… one we both cannot answer to your satisfaction, because they ARE NOT IN the game independent of the U.S. However you’re proving my point unintentionally. They would not stay in the business if they could not profit. This is why a subsidy is always self-evident whenever dictation of lower prices through force (government) is present. It is also important to remember that Canada is an ally of the U.S. and basically declaring war on their Health System is not in our interest… at a minimum it would not be particularly healthy for relations. Adding to this, the Drug Companies know what condition the Canadian Health System is in and cutting their nose off to spite their face was probably weighed as undesirable. You could finally offer that selling into markets at a loss has a small, ancillary benefit realized through economy of scale… assuming you had other markets delivering the margins you need, such as the U.S. You could even offer up the argument of public relations and the nightmare a company would suffer from ceasing to sell into certain markets… but you would have to have a very good spin machine to distract the population from the government dictating prices.

                  Finally, in regard to your underestimating my knowledge as to where drugs are manufactured… I am well aware that much of our drug supply is manufactured outside of the United States, everywhere from Isreal to Mexico. The quality control problems come from lax distribution monitoring. The supply chain becomes polluted, corrupted, whatever you’d like to call it. The fact that you can purchase any number of… say… Amoxicillin in Mexico at the local Pharamcia and only 20% of it will test for the correct dosage let alone the anti-biotic itself is well know and documented.

                  Your complaint seems to be centered on government involvement and the influence the drug companies wield in return. On this we would agree that there is a problem. But the solution is not to apply MORE government to attempt a solution as it denies the very cause of the problem in the first place. The solution, instead, is to use the power of the press, and our voices, to educate the population. The press appears to be stuck in the mode of indoctrination… along with the government schools. We should probably start with these too right away.

                  It is always interesting how some of us “Free-Market Types” desperately wish to employ the power of government to “solve” the problems of the world while missing the Irony, or at least suffering from debilitating Cognitive Dissonance. However, if this were the case, John McCain would not have had a future in government.

                  But like I said… the markets always work. They may not work as quickly as one would like, but they always work. It is our responsibility to keep government out of the markets… the markets will always try to influence government and while we can fight that through exposure we should never want the ability apply government force to fire, destroy, etc. a private company for doing what is not illegal. On the other hand it is entirely within our scope of responsibility to punish our politicians for such behavior. They are welcome to take the money, but the second the start handing out barriers to entry, taxpayer subsidies, special favors we may just not like, we need to move to fire them.

                  This is fun… and I’ve learned something. Thanks.

                  Like

  • David

    unfortunately this is just the beginning. just wait to see what happens next year. oh by the way, the union members will all live to see the carnage. they’re exempt from Obamacare. you should see the list of those who are exempt.

    Like

  • thirdnews

    The useless media have failed to exposed who instead of 10-year old Sarah is getting the available organs

    And the usual candidates, include people in prison but my all time favs were “four organ transplant operations a UCLA surgeon performed on members of a Japanese crime syndicate” AKA Yakuza

    BTW, the system is rigged for the well-off; it is simply a matter of encouraging a physician to exaggerate your critical status

    If Sarah really want to live, she needs to rob a bank

    http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=4966543&page=1

    Like

    • Mike

      Inequities will always exist… always… but Obama Care is just an Insurance policy for the political class to ensure they will always receive the best treatment while denying it to those they disagree with. That’s how’s it’s worked out in Europe. Canada is a bit different, but only slightly… theirs lives off of the largess of U.S. wealth, and in dire circumstance the availability of urgent Care in the U.S. There is a reason that Bush refused to allow us to purchase medications from Canada. If he had, it would have effectively bankrupted their entire Health Services as they would no longer have been able to dictate what prices they were willing to pay drug companies for needed medications. Socialism is poison… no matter where it is tried.

      Like

      • thirdnews

        Mike, I disagree with the ‘drugs companies will go bankrupt’ meme but it is a reply that merits a blog.

        Inequities exist because people are naturally shitheads, or is it just men -I’m not sure. My blog got over 3,400 hits today from the British Prime-minister’s wife sex scandal link – I guess people are really voyeuristic shitheads

        Like

        • Mike

          Nice on the hits!

          But I never said drug companies would go bankrupt. I said the Canadian Health Care system would go bankrupt. If we were allowed to purchase medications from Canada, which I think we should be able to do, then the Canadian government would not be able to dictate pricing to the drug companies any longer because they would simply not sell into the Canadian market at those prices. the reason for this is that the U.S. market subsidizes the socialized medicine schemes of other countries by paying the elevated costs of medication (because we can, supposedly). If those artificial barriers were to be removed, a balancing of prices would occur… our prices would go down slightly and Canadian prices would go up slightly. Right now, Canada is holding on by the skin of their teeth in regard to their Health Services. That would be the “nudge” sending it into fiscal collapse… and then they would have to face e reality Socialists don’t like. They would have to embrace a free-market, private Health System.

          Like

          • thirdnews

            Many of your oft-repeated ‘facts’ are just plain wrong; I will write a reply blog on this topic in the future.

            BTW, my hits are Views: 3,638 and I suspect I can thank English law, specifically the ‘Super Injunctions’ clause -that and google

            Like

            • Mike

              I welcome being set straight, always. This is what comments are for. I also stand to learn something regarding which oft-repeated ‘facts’ are just plain wrong. It is also good for those passive readers to experience the exchange. So, let it rip.

              Like

            • Mike

              And, I enjoy others showing me where Free-markets fail.

              Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: