This is the Government that You Want to Run Health-care?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

When you can be bothered doing some research and posting evidence that alleged EU controls on drugs prices lead to a substantive penalty against the US then I might give this some weight.

You need evidence that price controls lower the price were there are price controls, and increase the cost where there are not price controls.

Would you also like evidence that the Earth rotates?

 

[Architect]

The answer to the question is no.

That is wholly illogical.

It has been shown to you that the UK and Canada, amonst others, pay less for healthcare than the US. It has also been shown that, by the commonly accepted indicators such as infant mortality and life expectancy, citizens of these countries enjoy better health.

So why do you believe the slower, less effective US system is superior?

 

[Architect]

You need evidence that price controls lower the price were there are price controls, and increase the cost where there are not price controls.

Would you also like evidence that the Earth rotates?

With respect, reading comprehension is clearly not your strong point. Perhaps you should have finished high school. Let's look at the question again:

When you can be bothered doing some research and posting evidence that alleged EU controls on drugs prices lead to a substantive penalty against the US then I might give this some weight.

So, to make life easy for you:

1. Post links proving that the EU states exercise significant cost control on pharmaceutical drugs.

2. Show that the prices so imposed lead to a substantive penalty against the US manufacturers.

Come on, it can't be any harder than supporting your colonial wealth argument, can it......oh, just a minute, you got your arse kicked over there too......

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

That is wholly illogical.

It has been shown to you that the UK and Canada, amonst others, pay less for healthcare than the US. It has also been shown that, by the commonly accepted indicators such as infant mortality and life expectancy, citizens of these countries enjoy better health.

So why do you believe the slower, less effective US system is superior?

You don't pay much attention, do you?


I would explain it to you, but alas, you will ignore what I write and then write a facsimile of your above post.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

With respect, reading comprehension is clearly not your strong point. Perhaps you should have finished high school. Let's look at the question again:



So, to make life easy for you:

1. Post links proving that the EU states exercise significant cost control on pharmaceutical drugs.

2. Show that the prices so imposed lead to a substantive penalty against the US manufacturers.

Come on, it can't be any harder than supporting your colonial wealth argument, can it......oh, just a minute, you got your arse kicked over there too......

Would you also like evidence that the Earth rotates on an axis?

Your requests are ridiculous. Even if they were not than you would continue to repeat the same demand for evidence despite receiving such.

 

[Corsair 115]

Your requests are ridiculous. Even if they were not than you would continue to repeat the same demand for evidence despite receiving such.

So, when challenged to support your claim, you choose not to cite evidence? That doesn't seem to me much of a way of getting others to accept your position.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

So, when challenged to support your claim, you choose not to cite evidence? That doesn't seem to me much of a way of getting others to accept your position.

No, that quote was directed specifically at Architect and his requests for evidence.

 

[Blue Mountain]

No, that quote was directed specifically at Architect and his requests for evidence.

Ditto Corsair's remarks. You were asked for evidence to back up your claims and refused to supply it. So far all you've done is simply assume it's self-evident, to the extent you asked us if we also wanted evidence that the Earth rotates n its axis.

I have news for you: it's not self-evident that the Earth rotates on its axis. If it was, Galileo would not have had his famous run-in with the Inquisition in 1633. In the same vein, your assertions about European drug pricing policies are not self-evident either. That's why we're asking you to post your evidence.

Jerome, you can be a frustrating person to "debate" with. When you make an outlandish statement and we ask you to back it up with some evidence, you get all huffy about it. When we show you our evidence for our assertions, you simply ignore it. And when we show you evidence that your assertions are incorrect, you change the topic.

We have another class of poster on this forum who live in a similar fantasy world and act the same way. You can find them in the conspiracy theories section.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Ditto Corsair's remarks. You were asked for evidence to back up your claims and refused to supply it. So far all you've done is simply assume it's self-evident, to the extent you asked us if we also wanted evidence that the Earth rotates n its axis.

I have news for you: it's not self-evident that the Earth rotates on its axis. If it was, Galileo would not have had his famous run-in with the Inquisition in 1633. In the same vein, your assertions about European drug pricing policies are not self-evident either. That's why we're asking you to post your evidence.

Jerome, you can be a frustrating person to "debate" with. When you make an outlandish statement and we ask you to back it up with some evidence, you get all huffy about it. When we show you our evidence for our assertions, you simply ignore it. And when we show you evidence that your assertions are incorrect, you change the topic.

We have another class of poster on this forum who live in a similar fantasy world and act the same way. You can find them in the conspiracy theories section.

You are arguing that it is not self evident that price controls lower cost for the areas in which price controls are instituted and raise cost in the areas in which there are no price controls.

If this is not apparent to someone than there is no evidence to show such to someone.

 

[Fiona]

Well you are not really saying that though. are you? You appear to be saying that drugs companies need a certain level of return to make them viable; that the prices paid in europe are below that rate of return (thus they sell at a loss there); and that they do this altruistic thing because they get a bigger rate of return than necessary in the us, thus subsidising the price in europe. None of that is obvious to me and I do think it needs evidence: in particular, I see no reason to suppose that most companies will base price on cost recovery alone, rather than on what the market will bear: nor any reason to suppose that most companies will bother to sell at a loss - thus I still do not see why they would sell in europe at all, if this were the case. I saw earlier that those same companies sell at different prices in different countries and that this has led to some countries threatening to breach patent if the price is not lowered. If the price sought was below profitability I do not see why the comanies would comply, given that drugs are controlled and that generics produced under special licence could not be legally exported. Are you arguing that the price in America is based on some notion of "true cost" ? If you are can you provide some evidence as to how this is arrived at? Or do you say that the price in America is too high? If that is the case then why is it not sensible to introduce price controls there too?

 

[Architect]

Jerome

You deliberately obfusicate and misdirect.

Fiona and Blue Mountain have summed it up more than adequately but at the end of the day it comes to this. YOU, and you alone, have claimed (amongst other things) that the US subsidises drug sales in the EU because of price control mechanisms. However you have failed - once again - to provide any evidence for this startling hypothesis. This would necessarily include details of the controls which you allege exist and a review of the impact upon overall product profitability.

This is a sceptics' site. If you produce a claim then you are expected to back it up. If you cannot do so, then do not whine when we point it out to you. Instead pick up your baggage and make your way over to the Loose Change forums. They don't demand pesky things like evidence over there.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Well you are not really saying that though. are you?

In fact I am saying that. You just read it and then you proceed to create a straw-man to blow below.

You appear to be saying that drugs companies need a certain level of return to make them viable; that the prices paid in europe are below that rate of return (thus they sell at a loss there); and that they do this altruistic thing because they get a bigger rate of return than necessary in the us, thus subsidising the price in europe. None of that is obvious to me and I do think it needs evidence: in particular, I see no reason to suppose that most companies will base price on cost recovery alone, rather than on what the market will bear: nor any reason to suppose that most companies will bother to sell at a loss - thus I still do not see why they would sell in europe at all, if this were the case. I saw earlier that those same companies sell at different prices in different countries and that this has led to some countries threatening to breach patent if the price is not lowered. If the price sought was below profitability I do not see why the comanies would comply, given that drugs are controlled and that generics produced under special licence could not be legally exported. Are you arguing that the price in America is based on some notion of "true cost" ? If you are can you provide some evidence as to how this is arrived at? Or do you say that the price in America is too high? If that is the case then why is it not sensible to introduce price controls there too?

 

[jimbob]

Thank you for your kind offer, zooterkin. ;-)

Jerome, are you going to explain how people on $6/hr are going to afford medical care in an entirely free-market situation.

I would like some breakdown of where I have overestimated the costs, because I can't see how they could.

First question: What is the maximum that someone on $6/hr could afford? Will this change if they have $4k of assets?

Second Question: How much will a 5-hour coronary bypass cost in a complete free market? - Explain how you arrived at a breakdown of the figures.

Third Question: For most people, is it going to be cheaper to be insured or uninsured?

Fourth Question: You pay more for a service which, measured on life expectancy and infant mortality, produces tangibly less benefits that the unversal healthcare systems in the UK and Canada (amongst others). These systems provide, as a minimum, comparable standards of healthcare to everyone regardless of insurers. How can paying less but getting more be a bad thing?

You are arguing that it is not self evident that price controls lower cost for the areas in which price controls are instituted and raise cost in the areas in which there are no price controls.

If this is not apparent to someone than there is no evidence to show such to someone.

I didn't mantion the cost of drugs at all in my post.

I simply asked about the cost of labor, capital, and loss of income.

Can you answer these questions convincingly?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I didn't mantion the cost of drugs at all in my post.

I simply asked about the cost of labor, capital, and loss of income.

Can you answer these questions convincingly?

I am sorry, but your questions are inane.

 

[volatile]

Why are all your posts evasive one-liners? Would it hurt you to put a coherent argument together now and again? Please?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Why are all your posts evasive one-liners? Would it hurt you to put a coherent argument together now and again? Please?

I have found that if I put together much more than two sentences than the post is either ignored or a single line is taken out of context and off-point then debated ad nauseam.

I like to keep it simple and succinct. They say one should always remember one's audience.

 

[Blue Mountain]

I have found that if I put together much more than two sentences than the post is either ignored or a single line is taken out of context and off-point then debated ad nauseam.

Sometimes. Other times people will pick apart entire posts line by line.

I like to keep it simple and succinct. They say one should always remember one's audience.

But lately you've taken to just saying "It's obvious; it's obvious" without even trying to address the points we're discussing. About the only thing different between that and the 9/11 truthers is you're not adding "!!11!eleventyone!" to your statements.

It's now obvious that Jerome is here to preach and not debate. At least Balrog666 (G'Kar) backs up his assertions with some evidence when he's asked to do so--witness him asking me about the Walter Reed mess when I mentioned the VA.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Sometimes. Other times people will pick apart entire posts line by line.

Yes, I had forgotten that technique used to obscure the salient points of a post.

But lately you've taken to just saying "It's obvious; it's obvious" without even trying to address the points we're discussing. About the only thing different between that and the 9/11 truthers is you're not adding "!!11!eleventyone!" to your statements.

It's now obvious that Jerome is here to preach and not debate. At least Balrog666 (G'Kar) backs up his assertions with some evidence when he's asked to do so--witness him asking me about the Walter Reed mess when I mentioned the VA.

Basically I decided to respond in kind to Architect. I wanted to see how many posts he would make following me around the forum stating that I do not provide evidence. His efforts are herculean.

 

[zooterkin]

I have found that if I put together much more than two sentences than the post is either ignored or a single line is taken out of context and off-point then debated ad nauseam.

Or perhaps your evidence gets pulled apart because it isn't very good in the first place, and it's safer not to expose it to public scrutiny?

They say one should always remember one's audience.

You have an audience of sceptics and critical thinkers; perhaps you should remember that.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Or perhaps your evidence gets pulled apart because it isn't very good in the first place, and it's safer not to expose it to public scrutiny?

Not at all.

You have an audience of sceptics and critical thinkers; perhaps you should remember that.

There are some here, yes. Many are only pretending.