U.S. President Biden now supports waiving vaccine patent protections

[Surelynot]

3 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Thank you for making my point.  WHEN DRUG COMPANIES OR ANY COMPANY CAN'T MAKE A PROFIT they don't put forth any effort.  That is why if you remove the patent protection from the Covid vaccines you are guaranteeing that in the future they won't respond just as they don't with new anti-biotics because they can't make any money on them. 

As for laws changing all the time. Yes they do but not retroactively.  If the law did not provide for patent protection for those companies who invested their time on developing a Covid vaccine but they chose to do so anyway, then that is fine.  However, you don't change a law retroactively.  They were given a patent for their discovery.  To now revoke that patent is nothing less than confiscation of private property without compensation. 

THIS IS A WORLDWIDE PANDEMIC

[Thomas J]

8 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

Yep.......... the NHS.......people all over the world laugh at our NHS and say thank god we don't have a system like that.

There are 4 ways to spend money. 

1. You spend your own money on yourself. - You care about the cost, you care about the quality.

2. You spend your money on someone else - perhaps a gift.  You care about the cost, but quality is not nearly as important since someone else benefits from it. 

3. You spend someone elses money on yourself - Company paid meal.  You don't care at all about the cost but you care a great deal you are getting the best quality for yourself. 

4. You spend someone elses money on someone else.  You care nothing about the cost and even less about the quality. 

The last one is Third Party Pay.  Government run healthcare or for that matter any government run program. 
 

[Thomas J]

Just now, Surelynot said:

THIS IS A WORLDWIDE PANDEMIC

SO WHAT?   Those companies responded to it.  If it is supply that you are concerned with let them license it to others to manufacture, not steal it by confiscating it and just giving away THEIR property. 

[Surelynot]

1 minute ago, Thomas J said:

1. You spend your own money on yourself. - You care about the cost, you care about the quality.

...and to hell with everyone else who can't afford health care.....nice.

[Surelynot]

3 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

There are 4 ways to spend money. 

1. You spend your own money on yourself. - You care about the cost, you care about the quality.

2. You spend your money on someone else - perhaps a gift.  You care about the cost, but quality is not nearly as important since someone else benefits from it. 

3. You spend someone elses money on yourself - Company paid meal.  You don't care at all about the cost but you care a great deal you are getting the best quality for yourself. 

4. You spend someone elses money on someone else.  You care nothing about the cost and even less about the quality. 

The last one is Third Party Pay.  Government run healthcare or for that matter any government run program. 
 

Can I assume you never, ever insure anything?.....House, car, travel, critical life?

[Thomas J]

1 minute ago, Surelynot said:

...and to hell with everyone else who can't afford health care.....nice.

No, I did not say that.  

You insure your car for ACCIDENTS not for oil changes, new tires, a change of batteries etc. 

There should be a program  like Social Security that takes a certain percentage of a persons pay and puts it into a flexible spending account and each person should have a Major Medical policy. 

For those routine tests, procedures, hospital visits etc. The person taps their flexible spending account.  They will shop for the provider giving the best service at the lowest cost.  If however they have a major illness just like car insurance it pays for the major costs not the minor ones.  The current system encourages waste since the consumer could not care less about the cost.  To control the huge waste the government then steps in to regulate.  That results in a huge wasteful bureaucracy and of course health care providers gaming the system.  If the government limits your reimbursement to lets say making only $15 per test.  No problem I will just run 20 tests. 

That would not happen if consumers rather than the government decided when to go, how much to spend, and whether to order the extra tests. 

[Thomas J]

6 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

Can I assume you never, ever insure anything?.....House, car, travel, critical life?

I do insure my house and car.  I don't insure travel since I find the expense I would incur for the insurance exceeds any loss experience on cancelled travel.  I once carried life insurance to provide for my wife and children should I pass away during my earning years.  Once I had accumulated sufficient money that if I was to pass they would still be taken care of I stopped buying life insurance. 

However, it was my choice.  I make a choice in buying insurance, its cost, how much the coverage, what the policy includes and I shop for it.  With things like Obamacare you get coverage for things you would never use and the related insurance premium costs. 

Consumers make choices each and every day and do it very well on where to get the most for their money.  If you forced health care providers to compete for their customers you would find the quality of health care improve and its costs reduced.  

As an example, with an insurance program that has a customer Copay.  Once I have reached that, I care nothing about how much more the provider charges, yet I am the one choosing the service.  I want the best.  If it was coming from my flexible spending account, I would shop and find the best provider at the lowest cost, and make the determination if I truly wanted that service.  

Right now, you have bureaucrats making up rules, hospitals, doctors, pharmaceutical companies and other gaming those rules.  The result, the world spends more on healthcare than any other activity and gets the least for it. 

 

[Surelynot]

8 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

With things like Obamacare you get coverage for things you would never use and the related insurance premium costs. 

That is how insurance works.......a caring society shares the costs........old age pension, health care, social security......you might die at 60 or 100, you might be seriously ill or lead a very healthy life, you might be gainfully employed you whole life or find yourself made redundant.......it is this type of insurance managed by governments that avoids the horror story that is America.

[Thomas J]

36 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

hat is how insurance works.

No, that is not how insurance works

 

In Automobile insurance I can choose how much coverage, what my deductibles are, whether to have full coverage no matter who is at fault, collision coverage if the other person is at fault, or no collision coverage.  I can choose my medical limits, I can choose whether to have a choice of repair shops or one mandated by the insurance company.  I can choose to have towing or not.  With government insurance "everyone gets the same"   

Again, whenever you have a government program no matter what it is IT ALWAYS COSTS MORE AND IS RUN POORLY.  If you want a view at Government Healthcare look no further than the Veterans Administration.   Lousy expensive coverage. 

I agree everyone should be covered but as the system stands right now, you have the hospitals, doctors, pharmaceutical companies and other health care providers all "gaming the system"  Doctors ordering unnecessary tests to make extra money.  Hospitals keeping patients as long as possible "until their coverage limits expire"  Pharmaceutical companies lobbying to get on the approved drug list knowing that it is an unlimited source of new revenue. 

The only control in any bartered system is a willing seller and a willing buyer.  The buyer always will "shop" for the best value.   There is nothing wrong with mandating a "major medical policy" for each citizen.  That covers them for "major" illnesses.  Not scraped knees, sutures for cuts, routine hospital visits, flu shots etc.  Those expenses should be paid out of the persons "flexible spending account"  A deduction like social security is made and it goes into the person's account.  They are then free to use that account to purchase "routine medical care"   They will like all consumers comparison shop wanting to preserve as much of the account as possible.  Health care providers would then have to compete for their business.  Look at Thailand where hospitals run promotions for treatment.  My cost for cataract surgery here is less than my co-pay would be back in the USA.  

If you want a perfect example look at Lasik surgery.  When first introduced it cost upwards of $3.500 per eye.  Since it is not covered by most health care plans, competition has driven it down to as little as $250 per eye and all the time with improving technology. 

If I am a provider and know that the consumer doesn't care what I charge once they paid their $20 co-pay my incentive is to charge the health care program as much as possible and provide the least amount of service.  The government hits back, telling me only what they will pay.  I respond by then lowering my service level to improve my profits.   Doctors are limited in compensation to a certain profit amount per test.  No problem, instead of the one vital test, I will call for 20 tests and who is going to tell me they were not necessary. 

My system is not perfect.  Some will not go for the care they require.  If you want perfection, with that being great care, low cost and universal coverage - IT WILL NOT AND CAN NOT HAPPEN.    The only way to introduce some discipline in the system is to provide patients with an incentive to shop for healthcare and create a system where health care providers are forced to compete for that business.   Otherwise you end up where we are.  A bureaucratic expensive boondoggle that straps consumers and the health care system with countless rules all adding to the expense while making the system adversarial where health care providers try to charge the most, while providing the least and the government counters with more stringent oversight. 

 

[Surelynot]

2 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

No, that is not how insurance works

 

In Automobile insurance I can choose how much coverage, what my deductibles are, whether to have full coverage no matter who is at fault, collision coverage if the other person is at fault, or no collision coverage.  I can choose my medical limits, I can choose whether to have a choice of repair shops or one mandated by the insurance company.  I can choose to have towing or not.  With government insurance "everyone gets the same"   

Again, whenever you have a government program no matter what it is IT ALWAYS COSTS MORE AND IS RUN POORLY.  If you want a view at Government Healthcare look no further than the Veterans Administration.   Lousy expensive coverage. 

I agree everyone should be covered but as the system stands right now, you have the hospitals, doctors, pharmaceutical companies and other health care providers all "gaming the system"  Doctors ordering unnecessary tests to make extra money.  Hospitals keeping patients as long as possible "until their coverage limits expire"  Pharmaceutical companies lobbying to get on the approved drug list knowing that it is an unlimited source of new revenue. 

The only control in any bartered system is a willing seller and a willing buyer.  The buyer always will "shop" for the best value.   There is nothing wrong with mandating a "major medical policy" for each citizen.  That covers them for "major" illnesses.  Not scraped knees, sutures for cuts, routine hospital visits, flu shots etc.  Those expenses should be paid out of the persons "flexible spending account"  A deduction like social security is made and it goes into the person's account.  They are then free to use that account to purchase "routine medical care"   They will like all consumers comparison shop wanting to preserve as much of the account as possible.  Health care providers would then have to compete for their business.  Look at Thailand where hospitals run promotions for treatment.  My cost for cataract surgery here is less than my co-pay would be back in the USA.  

If you want a perfect example look at Lasik surgery.  When first introduced it cost upwards of $3.500 per eye.  Since it is not covered by most health care plans, competition has driven it down to as little as $250 per eye and all the time with improving technology. 

If I am a provider and know that the consumer doesn't care what I charge once they paid their $20 co-pay my incentive is to charge the health care program as much as possible and provide the least amount of service.  The government hits back, telling me only what they will pay.  I respond by then lowering my service level to improve my profits.   Doctors are limited in compensation to a certain profit amount per test.  No problem, instead of the one vital test, I will call for 20 tests and who is going to tell me they were not necessary. 

My system is not perfect.  Some will not go for the care they require.  If you want perfection, with that being great care, low cost and universal coverage - IT WILL NOT AND CAN NOT HAPPEN.    The only way to introduce some discipline in the system is to provide patients with an incentive to shop for healthcare and create a system where health care providers are forced to compete for that business.   Otherwise you end up where we are.  A bureaucratic expensive boondoggle that straps consumers and the health care system with countless rules all adding to the expense while making the system adversarial where health care providers try to charge the most, while providing the least and the government counters with more stringent oversight. 

 

Give in....you win.....555

[Thomas J]

1 minute ago, Surelynot said:

Give in....you win.....555

Surelynot, 

Let me first say, I appreciate your civility in the responses.  Though we may disagree you have not been disagreeable. 

I think that both of us want what is best for the public and certainly a cure for the pandemic.  The same is true for health care in general.  

However I am a staunch advocate of the marketplace.  I can not think of one single example of when a government program has ever run efficiently or cost effectively.   I can tell you in talking to lobbyists from the health care industry, they want more regulation.  Only the super huge companies will be able to wade through it and they have the lobbyists to control its provisions for their benefit.  

Let them compete, and if successful make a profit.  Let consumers have choices and I trust them to look out for their own benefit and do a better job than some bureaucrat who doesn't give a rip about them. 

[Surelynot]

Just now, Thomas J said:

Surelynot, 

Let me first say, I appreciate your civility in the responses.  Though we may disagree you have not been disagreeable. 

I think that both of us want what is best for the public and certainly a cure for the pandemic.  The same is true for health care in general.  

However I am a staunch advocate of the marketplace.  I can not think of one single example of when a government program has ever run efficiently or cost effectively.   I can tell you in talking to lobbyists from the health care industry, they want more regulation.  Only the super huge companies will be able to wade through it and they have the lobbyists to control its provisions for their benefit.  

Let them compete, and if successful make a profit.  Let consumers have choices and I trust them to look out for their own benefit and do a better job than some bureaucrat who doesn't give a rip about them. 

Ha....thanks for that and very enjoyable whilst it lasted.........there is little doubt the UK is being pushed down the US route, I just hope if it is, the NI we pay for the NHS doesn't stay in place AND we then have to pay for health insurance (it is a <Tory government after all)....which is what a lot of people (with the money) are doing already I guess.

 

Cheers.

[placeholder]

21 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

No, that is not how insurance works

 

In Automobile insurance I can choose how much coverage, what my deductibles are, whether to have full coverage no matter who is at fault, collision coverage if the other person is at fault, or no collision coverage.  I can choose my medical limits, I can choose whether to have a choice of repair shops or one mandated by the insurance company.  I can choose to have towing or not.  With government insurance "everyone gets the same"   

Again, whenever you have a government program no matter what it is IT ALWAYS COSTS MORE AND IS RUN POORLY.  If you want a view at Government Healthcare look no further than the Veterans Administration.   Lousy expensive coverage. 

I agree everyone should be covered but as the system stands right now, you have the hospitals, doctors, pharmaceutical companies and other health care providers all "gaming the system"  Doctors ordering unnecessary tests to make extra money.  Hospitals keeping patients as long as possible "until their coverage limits expire"  Pharmaceutical companies lobbying to get on the approved drug list knowing that it is an unlimited source of new revenue. 

The only control in any bartered system is a willing seller and a willing buyer.  The buyer always will "shop" for the best value.   There is nothing wrong with mandating a "major medical policy" for each citizen.  That covers them for "major" illnesses.  Not scraped knees, sutures for cuts, routine hospital visits, flu shots etc.  Those expenses should be paid out of the persons "flexible spending account"  A deduction like social security is made and it goes into the person's account.  They are then free to use that account to purchase "routine medical care"   They will like all consumers comparison shop wanting to preserve as much of the account as possible.  Health care providers would then have to compete for their business.  Look at Thailand where hospitals run promotions for treatment.  My cost for cataract surgery here is less than my co-pay would be back in the USA.  

If you want a perfect example look at Lasik surgery.  When first introduced it cost upwards of $3.500 per eye.  Since it is not covered by most health care plans, competition has driven it down to as little as $250 per eye and all the time with improving technology. 

If I am a provider and know that the consumer doesn't care what I charge once they paid their $20 co-pay my incentive is to charge the health care program as much as possible and provide the least amount of service.  The government hits back, telling me only what they will pay.  I respond by then lowering my service level to improve my profits.   Doctors are limited in compensation to a certain profit amount per test.  No problem, instead of the one vital test, I will call for 20 tests and who is going to tell me they were not necessary. 

My system is not perfect.  Some will not go for the care they require.  If you want perfection, with that being great care, low cost and universal coverage - IT WILL NOT AND CAN NOT HAPPEN.    The only way to introduce some discipline in the system is to provide patients with an incentive to shop for healthcare and create a system where health care providers are forced to compete for that business.   Otherwise you end up where we are.  A bureaucratic expensive boondoggle that straps consumers and the health care system with countless rules all adding to the expense while making the system adversarial where health care providers try to charge the most, while providing the least and the government counters with more stringent oversight. 

 

This is so blatantly false and you chose the worst field for an example. The USA has the highest cost per capita of any health care system in the world. On the other hand, among developed nations, it ranks as one of the worst.

 

U.S. Health Care from a Global Perspective, 2019: Higher Spending, Worse Outcomes?

A 2015 Commonwealth Fund brief showed that — before the major provisions of the Affordable Care Act were introduced — the United States had worse outcomes and spent more on health care, largely because of greater use of medical technology and higher prices, compared to other high-income countries.1 By benchmarking the performance of the U.S. health care system against other countries — and updating with new data as they become available — we can gain important insights into our strengths and weaknesses and help policymakers and delivery system leaders identify areas for improvement.

This analysis is the latest in a series of Commonwealth Fund cross-national comparisons that uses health data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to assess U.S. health care system spending, outcomes, risk factors and prevention, utilization, and quality, relative to 10 other high-income countries: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. 

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2020/jan/us-health-care-global-perspective-2019

Your theorizing explains everything except reality.

Edited May 10, 2021 by placeholder

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, Surelynot said:

Yes indeed why?....when you could instead have the one of the worst health care systems in the world for anyone who isn't in a position to enjoy insurance or excessive wealth.........I know which health system I would prefer between the US and the UK.

Would you be happy paying the increased taxation to pay for it?

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, Surelynot said:

Ha....thanks for that and very enjoyable whilst it lasted.........there is little doubt the UK is being pushed down the US route, I just hope if it is, the NI we pay for the NHS doesn't stay in place AND we then have to pay for health insurance (it is a <Tory government after all)....which is what a lot of people (with the money) are doing already I guess.

 

Cheers.

Something that bothered the <deleted> out of me working in an NHS hospital was that consultants have the right to use NHS nurses and facilities to treat private patients, meaning they get rich by using the taxpayer provided resources, which to me is blatant corruption.

At least in NZ private patients have to be treated in private hospitals.

 

BTW, the reason the NHS is going broke, IMO, is too many managers, too many fancy palaces buildings, too many overseas patients that should have to pay but don't ( unless they stopped that- we were not even allowed to ask if they were British ), and treating too many problems that were not the responsibility of the taxpayer.

[Surelynot]

14 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Would you be happy paying the increased taxation to pay for it?

Absolutely......I am fascinated by this obsession with governments not being allowed to tax.......the best country on earth is Germany.........look at their tax regime............it is an amazing country to live in......all due to democratic socialism and caring capitalism.

[Surelynot]

8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Something that bothered the <deleted> out of me working in an NHS hospital was that consultants have the right to use NHS nurses and facilities to treat private patients, meaning they get rich by using the taxpayer provided resources, which to me is blatant corruption.

Couldn't agree more......criminal.....but that's the Tories for you.

Edited May 10, 2021 by Surelynot

[thaibeachlovers]

5 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

Couldn't agree more......criminal.....but that's the Tories for you.

Rubbish. The NHS has existed through both Labour and Tory governments, and consultants have been using NHS for private patients from the beginning.

When I was working for the NHS Tony Blair was PM and Brown was wasting 6 billion quid on the NHS to hire more managers and build fancier buildings.

[thaibeachlovers]

11 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

Absolutely......I am fascinated by this obsession with governments not being allowed to tax.......the best country on earth is Germany.........look at their tax regime............it is an amazing country to live in......all due to democratic socialism and caring capitalism.

Strange then that I have never in my entire life had any desire to go live there.

The best country I ever lived in was Singapore. Nobody would accuse Singapore of being a bastion of democratic socialism or caring capitalism.

Edited May 10, 2021 by thaibeachlovers

[Surelynot]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Rubbish. The NHS has existed through both Labour and Tory governments, and consultants have been using NHS for private patients from the beginning.

When I was working for the NHS Tony Blair was PM and Brown was wasting 6 billion quid on the NHS to hire more managers and build fancier buildings.

Sorry....couldn't resist.

[Surelynot]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Strange then that I have never in my entire life had any desire to go live there.

It is amazing. Well managed, orderly, generally very clean........facilities are second to none.........people are every so friendly and helpful........if I had the choice I would retire there.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

It is amazing. Well managed, orderly, generally very clean........facilities are second to none.........people are every so friendly and helpful........if I had the choice I would retire there.

Oh well, each to their own. I prefer Thailand, which is hardly clean and certainly not orderly, but that's humanity for you.

 

Besides, I could never live in a country that would elect Merkel to run it.

Edited May 10, 2021 by thaibeachlovers

[Surelynot]

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

Oh well, each to their own. I prefer Thailand, which is hardly clean and certainly not orderly, but that's humanity for you.

Oh! Wait.............forgotten about Nana, soi 7, soi 8 etc.......yep. Thailand it is.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, Surelynot said:

Oh! Wait.............forgotten about Nana, soi 7, soi 8 etc.......yep. Thailand it is.

Behind the times, aren't you? Soi 7 and 8 ceased to be on the list of "in" places long, long ago.

[Surelynot]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Behind the times, aren't you? Soi 7 and 8 ceased to be on the list of "in" places long, long ago.

What??? The new bars on Soi 7 has only just been completed  last year.......and they have relayed the road and put in wide new pavements......it is looking good.

 

Where should I be going....what am I missing out on?

Edited May 10, 2021 by Surelynot

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, Surelynot said:

What??? The new bars on Soi 7 has only just been completed  last year.......and they have relayed the road and put in wide new pavements......it is looking good.

 

Where should I be going....what am I missing out on?

I'd love to give you a list of my favourite hang outs but that might contravene the forum rules.

I'm sure you are capable of finding good ones on your own, even on Soi 7.

[Nojohndoe]

While much of the debate above is valid as points of view what is overlooked is the fact that in the "normal order of things" every one of these vaccines would remain waiting the usual scrutiny of FDA approvals dependent on long term data before being given.

The situation now is that 99% have been assigned "emergency use" and legal recourse for medical "misadventure" has been waived yet the products are being marketed by some at maximum profit.

Is there no ethical aspect to consider in that ?

[Chomper Higgot]

6 hours ago, Thomas J said:

Thank you for making my point.  WHEN DRUG COMPANIES OR ANY COMPANY CAN'T MAKE A PROFIT they don't put forth any effort.  That is why if you remove the patent protection from the Covid vaccines you are guaranteeing that in the future they won't respond just as they don't with new anti-biotics because they can't make any money on them. 

As for laws changing all the time. Yes they do but not retroactively.  If the law did not provide for patent protection for those companies who invested their time on developing a Covid vaccine but they chose to do so anyway, then that is fine.  However, you don't change a law retroactively.  They were given a patent for their discovery.  To now revoke that patent is nothing less than confiscation of private property without compensation. 

1. The drug companies have made a profit.

2. Removing the patent protection will not prevent the companies continuing to make a profit.

3. Diplomatically the US will make significant gains from supporting lifting the patents.

4. Regardless of Biden’s support for lifting the patents other nations will ignore the patents to provide vaccines for their own citizens.

 

It’s going to happen, it’s not theft, it’s not communism it is a very smart move to get ahead of the inevitable patent busting that will happen as millions fall ill and die.

 

No, there is nothing wrong with making a profit, except at the cost of the lives of millions of human beings.

 

Smart move Biden, get it done.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, Nojohndoe said:

While much of the debate above is valid as points of view what is overlooked is the fact that in the "normal order of things" every one of these vaccines would remain waiting the usual scrutiny of FDA approvals dependent on long term data before being given.

The situation now is that 99% have been assigned "emergency use" and legal recourse for medical "misadventure" has been waived yet the products are being marketed by some at maximum profit.

Is there no ethical aspect to consider in that ?

Precisely, socialize the risks, privatize the profits.

 

The waivers and protections amount to a huge cash windfall handed to the drug companies by the Government.

 

And it doesn’t stop there, Big Pharma will undoubtably use this as an example to permanently relax regulation of their business.

 

 

[placeholder]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Would you be happy paying the increased taxation to pay for it?

How about asking if he would be happy with not paying for insurance or getting the money his company now spends on insurance?