The Waste of America's Health Care System in 1 Chart

[MetalDog]

That has always been my beef with these drugs, too.  Regardless of the side effects, the commercials always show a well adjusted person thanks to the drug.  And another thing, I know the pharmaceutical companies are supposed to test these drugs in advance of hitting the market, but, does anyone else feel like they are a guinea pig?  I mean, these new drugs come out and the doctors push them and noone REALLY knows the effects for months, sometimes years.

[GDS_Starfury]

my moms oncologist is a pretty sharp fucker and spends a lot of time looking into new drug therapies.  in the end though it was established drugs and concepts that won the day without resorting to drug trial programs (which werent covered by insurance anyway).

[MetalDog]

I'm not suggesting that we are overtly being used as test subjects, but, it seems to me that some of these doctors handing out free samples of the latest drug are just extensions of the pharma companies and we are being used as extended trial subjects.

[LongBlade]

I'm not suggesting that we are overtly being used as test subjects, but, it seems to me that some of these doctors handing out free samples of the latest drug are just extensions of the pharma companies and we are being used as extended trial subjects.

It's something of a catch-22.

Without a strong profit motive drug companies wouldn't have much incentive to research breakthrough drugs. Yes, that means they are "greedy" and it can cost a lot. But there is also a lot of failure. And yes, we sometimes get used as guinea pigs.

Viagra was not originally researched to make Windy feel like a young man - it was researched as a drug to relieve high blood pressure. On that account it was pretty much a failure. However, the drug had a certain side effect that made that research worth while. The rest is history.

I'm not trying to lionize drug companies here, but if the US was like the rest of the world it's not much of a stretch to suggest that medial research would stagnate. Or worse, be government regulated. And we know how good they are at picking winners and losers. Just look at companies like Solyndra.

[Windigo]

just to fine tune the debate... mirth loves graphs

[LongBlade]

We covered infant mortality earlier in this discussion.

Take out crack babies and there's an interesting change in that graph.

[Staggerwing]

It's weird the England/Wales has exactly the same number as Scotland.  ??? Are they actually supposed to be combined?

[GDS_Starfury]

I would imagine that in Texas and Florida the number of illegals warps the numbers.

[Staggerwing]

We covered infant mortality earlier in this discussion.

Take out crack babies and there's an interesting change in that graph.

Lotta crack babies in Oklahoma... who knew?

[GDS_Starfury]

those would be meth babies.
no joke.

[Windigo]

yet drug use deaths seem to not be terribly out of line. 1.5 per 100 000 in US versus 1.1 in Sweden for example..... IMO high infant mortality associated with drug use is a bit of a red herring on life expectancy

I suspect that poor lifestyle choices and limited availability of health care to the poor has more bearing


http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/drug-use/by-country/

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

BTW readers should not do the mental spin of trying to believe an EU company was screwing Americans. There were bigger US companies in the market with equivalent tech products. They basically had price power worldwide. Our product was actually cheaper in the US while having equivalent quality outcomes. So if anyone was screwing Americans it was the volume leading US firms.

You actually confirmed the point I was making.  In the US, the margins for successful new drugs and medical devices are huge.  Rest of the world, they are small.  This means that the USA is either the primary or the disproportionate funding mechanism for medical R&D for the world.

Also, it is true that many countries just won't use cutting edge drugs or equipment (or adopt them much later) because their government does not want to pay.

That R&D would have happened anyway. The only difference is the ROI TIMEFRAME.

[Windigo]

BTW readers should not do the mental spin of trying to believe an EU company was screwing Americans. There were bigger US companies in the market with equivalent tech products. They basically had price power worldwide. Our product was actually cheaper in the US while having equivalent quality outcomes. So if anyone was screwing Americans it was the volume leading US firms.

You actually confirmed the point I was making.  In the US, the margins for successful new drugs and medical devices are huge.  Rest of the world, they are small.  This means that the USA is either the primary or the disproportionate funding mechanism for medical R&D for the world.

Also, it is true that many countries just won't use cutting edge drugs or equipment (or adopt them much later) because their government does not want to pay.

That R&D would have happened anyway. The only difference is the ROI TIMEFRAME.

ahhhh, unbridled greed rears its ugly head

[GDS_Starfury]

yet drug use deaths seem to not be terribly out of line. 1.5 per 100 000 in US versus 1.1 in Sweden for example..... IMO high infant mortality associated with drug use is a bit of a red herring on life expectancy

I suspect that poor lifestyle choices and limited availability of health care to the poor has more bearing


http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/drug-use/by-country/

ya nimrod, poor lifestyle choices like crack and meth and limited healthcare because your money goes to drugs.
and to that being impoverished because you cant hold a job because your high.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

BTW readers should not do the mental spin of trying to believe an EU company was screwing Americans. There were bigger US companies in the market with equivalent tech products. They basically had price power worldwide. Our product was actually cheaper in the US while having equivalent quality outcomes. So if anyone was screwing Americans it was the volume leading US firms.

You actually confirmed the point I was making.  In the US, the margins for successful new drugs and medical devices are huge.  Rest of the world, they are small.  This means that the USA is either the primary or the disproportionate funding mechanism for medical R&D for the world.

Also, it is true that many countries just won't use cutting edge drugs or equipment (or adopt them much later) because their government does not want to pay.

That R&D would have happened anyway. The only difference is the ROI TIMEFRAME.

ahhhh, unbridled greed rears its ugly head

Yes. There is this strange attitude of many people that struggle to become biochem or genetic researchers. They are actually motivated by saving lives far more than making stockholders fabulously rich. Shocking I know. So when they get these jobs, they want to pursue their research no matter what.