🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Mar2.213104.29519@dcdwest.uucp> huang@dcdwest.uucp (William Huang) writes:

  I'm not defending the drug companies, but simplistic thinkin like
  this isn't gonna get anyone anywhere except worse off than we are
  now. 

>I want to start a discussion on health care reforms because I think
>it is very important and all the issues need to be sorted out and 
>offered to the Clinton's BEFORE the Clinton's finalize their plans.
>
>o DRUG COMPANIES
>   Scientists in all other areas are willing to make discoveries
>   for rock bottom salaries.  

    Would you be willing to document or list what "all those other 
    areas" are?   

    That's why all those students grind away for 4-6 years in
    college--for the opportunity to work for "rock bottom" salaries!
    Of course!


>Why do drug companies insist that no discovery
>   will occur unless their stockholders earn twice the rate of inflation?
    I presume you have some backup for this statement?  
    I presume you would also reduce the liability insurance premiums
    for what happens when a drug company puts a new Thalidomide on
    the market?

>   Is it fair, I wonder, to enact a law that will cause the following things
>   to happen:  If someone develops a drug that is proven
>   effective and needed by the public, the government will pay for all
>   justifyable development cost, and take-over the U.S. patent.

   Who pays for this?  The government HAS no money it didn't first
   take from me and thee.  I don't mind thee taxing thee, but I
   would prefer you not figure out new ways to tax me.

>   The drug can then be manufactured by any American company, provided
>   they continue to pay the original developer(s) a 2% royalty.

   So who pays the gov't back for their investment?

   And if you honestly think the government is capable of
   determining anything remotely resembling "justifiable development
   costs", I can only presume that you've never heard of Defense
   Contracting? 

>
>o DOCTORS
>   - Double or triple the admission rate at state-owned medical schools.

  This will RAISE the fees of the few doctors who can afford to
  attend.  But of course since only millionaires or their offspring
  will be attending, they'll all be glad to work afterwards as
  charity workers.

>   - Lower medical school admission requirements for seminarians and social
>     workers (and other greed-handicapped individuals).

   This of course will ensure that we have highly qualified medical
   personnel practicing medicine on us victims.  

>   - Allow highly trained nurses to open their own practice.  In
>     Boston, LPN (Liscensed Practicing Nurses) perform many of the routine
>     check-up things that are usually performed by doctors.  Naval
>     hospitals use nurse anesthesiologist (sp?) in operating rooms with good
>     success rate.  Provide the advertisement and paperwork so people
>     can take advantage of these nurse+/MD-'s.  What the heck ... why
>     not just allow the current RN's to open practices.

   May not want to go quite this far, but paramedics, nurses, etc.
   could easily offload expensive "doctor" work.