Antibiotic resistance - the death of socialized medicine

[Deleted]

Okay for all those who for some reason still support this idea of single payer, even though it's been shown that it leads to a decrease in quality, increase in corruption (bribes etc.) and higher taxes since you can't support it otherwise, I want you to consider this major issue:

http://www.nature.com/news/who-warns...ic-era-1.15135

Antibiotic resistance

Even one of the strongest antibiotic is likely to one day become less and less effective which will need to be replaced by a new stronger better antibiotic. This could literally throw healthcare back to the middle ages. Simple infections could become deadly and even simple operations could become impossible due to a high risk of infection. (Worst of all? Goodbye fake boobs.)

Here is a highlight from the article:

"There are few if any replacements for carbapenems in development, says Elizabeth Jungman, director of drug safety and innovation at the Pew Charitable Trusts in Washington DC. Companies lack economic incentives to develop new antibiotics, she says, and researchers have found it difficult to find new ways to get Gram-negative bacteria to take up antibiotics."

Do you get that? Companies (presumably pharmaceutical) lack economic incentives. Could Obamacare and all these peksy taxes and regulations be fueling the problem? Certainly. The left believes that "big pharma" is evil and needs to be taxed to shit. (Even though they've probably saved millions of lives.)

Now I don't know about you but a complete takeover of healthcare by the government is going to create even LESS economic incentives since socialized medicine often comes with price controls. That's how they keep it cheap in Europe, but it also stiffles innovation and reduces the total number of products.

[Deleted]

This would happen regardless of how healthcare is paid for, and in fact has already happened various times in the past. The bigger problem here is overprescribtion of antibiotics, overuse of antibiotics in agriculture, and antibiotic waste seeping into the ground water.

and there will always be money for healthcare, no matter what, people consider it too important. that doesn't mean the system doesn't have to be redesigned every few dacades. also has to do with how healthcare patents and drug trials work atm.

another solution is that you might see more antibiotic cocktails, consisting of 2-3 drugs, to reduce the speed at which resistance develops.

[FiveDkp]

Don't make a political issue out of something that isn't a political issue.

[Deleted]

Don't make a political issue out of something that isn't a political issue.

It certainly is a political issue. How are you going to encourage companies to research and create new antibiotics if you keep trying to tax them into the ground because someone upstairs deemed "they make too much money"? Or if you implement price controls which make it completely unprofitable to develop these drugs?

I mean sure they might not see an incentive even in a free market, but there's a better chance they will.

[Palemaster]

I don't believe that we'll go back to the middle ages in a sense of a simple cut will be a death sentence.

While it's true that bacteria are becoming resistant over time (evolution is a bitch), there are also inorganic medications being developed by nanoengineers.
It's just a matter of time before we can use tiny robots to destroy bacteria / protozoa / viruses etc, and usually technology evolves faster than biology so I don't think that the simple guy should worry about that.

There are, however, ways to delay bacteria's evolution. Like not over prescribing antibiotics, not taking antibiotics for longer than the doctor has ordered, not stopping taking antibiotics without a doctor's order etc.

[Edge-]

Okay for all those who for some reason still support this idea of single payer, even though it's been shown that it leads to a decrease in quality, increase in corruption (bribes etc.) and higher taxes

Outside of the last bit...

Do you have any actual evidence to support the rest of those assertions?

Do you get that? Companies (presumably pharmaceutical) lack economic incentives. Could Obamacare and all these peksy taxes and regulations be fueling the problem? Certainly. The left believes that "big pharma" is evil and needs to be taxed to shit. (Even though they've probably saved millions of lives.)

Oddly enough, you do realize that you're making the strongest argument against capitalism in medicine with this. You're kinda making the biggest argument for why such a crucial industry should be entirely socialized rather than privatized, as privatized companies are far less interested in curing anything when they could continually treat it, and aren't interested in treating it cheaply when they could treat it expensively and guarantee longterm profits.

Now I don't know about you but a complete takeover of healthcare by the government is going to create even LESS economic incentives since socialized medicine often comes with price controls. That's how they keep it cheap in Europe, but it also stiffles innovation and reduces the total number of products.

And if taxpayers fully funded/subsidized medical research/care with the goal of finding as many ways cheaply treat patients/diseases and cure what can be cured so that the tax burden becomes as small as possible, imagine what would happen as companies search for new antibiotics!

Which, by the way, we're already finding so the article you linked is already outdated: http://qz.com/324506/the-looming-sup...is-technology/

[RicardoZ]

Here's what I want to know about it...the other day one of my friends who lives in Holland told me about how her healthcare costs were up to like 130 euros per month. I find that hard to believe because she's paying more than I am and I have one of the more expensive plans from the best provider in the USA, plus my wife and two children are on it.

It seems to go against everything I've ever been told on these types of forums that somebody in Europe would be paying more for health insurance than me, especially considering I have an entire family on my plan and she's single.

[Deleted]

I don't believe that we'll go back to the middle ages in a sense of a simple cut will be a death sentence.

While it's true that bacteria are becoming resistant over time (evolution is a bitch), there are also inorganic medications being developed by nanoengineers.
It's just a matter of time before we can use tiny robots to destroy bacteria / protozoa / viruses etc, and usually technology evolves faster than biology so I don't think that the simple guy should worry about that.

But who's going to develop this technology?

There are, however, ways to delay bacteria's evolution. Like not over prescribing antibiotics, not taking antibiotics for longer than the doctor has ordered, not stopping taking antibiotics without a doctor's order etc.

I agree. I don't recall ever arguing against that.

[Edge-]

Here's what I want to know about it...the other day one of my friends who lives in Holland told me about how her healthcare costs were up to like 130 euros per month. I find that hard to believe because she's paying more than I am and I have one of the more expensive plans from the best provider in the USA, plus my wife and two children are on it.

What plan do you fucking have? Because even before the ACA went into affect, the cheapest policy I could get as a healthy individual was around $100 a month, and that was essentially a "You won't go bankrupt, but it's not going to really cover shit."

Like, sorry to sound rude, but that sounds completely unbelievable, especially with the requirements for plans nowadays. Unless you're being insanely heavily subsidized by the government.

[Lylandra]

Now, this is ridiculous. You really go that far to say that antibiotic resistance is linked to public healthcare?
Let's get some facts straight:

1) There are many more people than those who live in the US (europe, ehem...) who have had public healthcare for *centuries*(beginning roughly 200 years ago in Prussia), even before antibiotics were even discovered.

2) Some of the biggest pharmaceutical companies do not even come from the US (Novartis, Sanofi, Merck, Bayer...) and even if they were, they'd still sell world wide. Some could even argue that public healthcare since the 1800's ensured that so many pharmaceutical companies could prosper in Europe.

3) Broad-band antibiotics were invented to create a fast and safe (= economical) medication against the most common bacteria. This means patients don't have to try out multiple antibiotics and companies don't have to produce hundreds of different pills.

4) Problem is, there are many doctors who prescribe broad-band antibiotics against everything that *could* be related to bacteria, or to simply prevent a super-infection
on a patient who has a virus infection. Even if the patient is an otherwise healthy adult (instead of a frail elder, someone in hospital or a young child). Antibiotics were also used (especially in countries where meat has to be accessible and cheap first and foremost) by farmers who do mass husbandry, to *prevent* their animals from becoming sick.

5) Antibiotic resistance has become a thing only recently. because of the abovementioned reasons bacteria had the chance to be exposed to masses of antibiotics, therefore, via the process of evolution, developing resistance against some of the more common antibiotics. Yes, this is real and this is really dangerous if antibiotics continue to be handed out careless.

So yes, it is not that economical to develop stronger antibiotics against the new multi-resistant bacteria. Yes, developing new antibiotics is difficult and a langthy process and the first abtibiotic (Penicillin) which is still proscribed today was found per accident. But maybe those companies will soon have no choice. Either that, or we learn to carefully handle those few, strong specific antibiotics that still work against their targets.

[Palemaster]

But who's going to develop this technology?

Them.

[RicardoZ]

What plan do you fucking have? Because even before the ACA went into affect, the cheapest policy I could get as a healthy individual was around $100 a month, and that was essentially a "You won't go bankrupt, but it's not going to really cover shit."

Like, sorry to sound rude, but that sounds completely unbelievable, especially with the requirements for plans nowadays. Unless you're being insanely heavily subsidized by the government.

I have Kaiser-Permanente and pay around $250 a month. At my employer the basic policies for singles are free through Cigna, but being that I have a family I went with Kaiser even though it's more expensive premium-wise because they had lower deductibles and copays.

[Edge-]

I have Kaiser-Permanente and pay around $250 a month. At my employer the basic policies for singles are free through Cigna, but being that I have a family I went with Kaiser even though it's more expensive premium-wise because they had lower deductibles and copays.

So you're paying more than she is, especially given that I'd imagine her expenses cover everything and there aren't deductibles or copays. Though you say it's one o the more expensive plans which seems kinda crazy to me (if you are in California), because when I was signing up for health care through the exchange I remember seeing a ton of health care plans for individuals that were far more expensive than $250 and that was just for a single individual. Just sounds strange as hell to me >.>

[Selsta]

Here's what I want to know about it...the other day one of my friends who lives in Holland told me about how her healthcare costs were up to like 130 euros per month. I find that hard to believe because she's paying more than I am and I have one of the more expensive plans from the best provider in the USA, plus my wife and two children are on it.

It seems to go against everything I've ever been told on these types of forums that somebody in Europe would be paying more for health insurance than me, especially considering I have an entire family on my plan and she's single.

Not sure what you have a hard time believing. It's true, the base insurance costs around 90 euro, anything additional insurance goes on top of that. Oh btw the base insurance covers fuck all.
There's no such thing as family plans here, anyone 18 years and olders pays a similar amount for insurance.

OT:
not sure why in every argument about health obamacare gets pulled in, the system isn't perfect but can hardly be blamed for pharmaseutical companies holding back on developing new drugs until they can make a huge profit on them. This has been the case since forever

[RicardoZ]

So you're paying more than she is, especially given that I'd imagine her expenses cover everything and there aren't deductibles or copays. Though you say it's one o the more expensive plans which seems kinda crazy to me (if you are in California), because when I was signing up for health care through the exchange I remember seeing a ton of health care plans for individuals that were far more expensive than $250 and that was just for a single individual. Just sounds strange as hell to me >.>

Hmmm...I guess it just must depend on how much either the government or my employer is subsidizing it but I can't imagine they would be that much because I used to live in Georgia before I moved here and the costs there were comparable to here, and that was without any subsidies at all. I guess it just depends on where you live/where you work...to be honest I'm not sure how it really works out in the end, the woman who went over the benefits package with me explained it all but it just sounded like mush to me

Anyway the point is that I can't believe my healthcare expenses are even comparable to hers in price, especially considering all the talk I've heard about how perfect these things are in Europe and how it's free over there and everything. It was just kind of eye-opening.

[Lylandra]

I don't know about the other european countries, but in Germany you only pay healthcare if you actually earn money. It is a % of your income up to a maximum absolute value. If you happen to have kids - no problem, all covered up by the corresponding adult. If you're married and your partner doesn't work it's the same. And it covers almost everything (okay, no gold-teeth or special glasses, but every MRT, CT, operation etc. that's necessary) without additional pay.

You can still get additional insurance for stuff that general insurance doesn't cover for a rather small fee, but it is rarely worth it. Unless you want to have a complete teeth-makeover :X

edit: Checked up my own expense for the last year. 160 Euros/month with a mediocre-paid job. Not too bad.

[cFortyfive]

but it just sounded like mush to me
It was just kind of eye-opening.

Sounds legit.

edit: Checked up my own expense for the last year. 160 Euros/month with a mediocre-paid job. Not too bad.

Yes normal health care is pretty cheap. I pay for private health care around 350 covers everything including golden teeth though ^

[Deleted]

Outside of the last bit...

Do you have any actual evidence to support the rest of those assertions?

Well let's see:

- NHS in UK having a very poor ambulance response time
- Good doctors fleeing the public sector where they're not rewarded enough, sometimes fleeing the entire country as happens in Eastern European countries (also known as brain drain)

There are all sorts of defiencies you can find online in various articles documenting the failures of socialized medicine. You have to realize that socialism has never really worked for any other product, not food, not furniture, not housing (unless you're fine with crappy houses I guess). Not even toilet paper believe it not. It's dirt cheap in the west, yet somehow the Venezuelan government has managed the spectatcular task of turning it into a luxury while trying to make it more accessible since it pretty much scared off the companies who make toilet paper through price controls and hostile takeovers of toilet paper imports. So why would it be different for healthcare? The same rules of economics apply, it's just that the good/service changes.

Oddly enough, you do realize that you're making the strongest argument against capitalism in medicine with this. You're kinda making the biggest argument for why such a crucial industry should be entirely socialized rather than privatized, as privatized companies are far less interested in curing anything when they could continually treat it,

That never ever worked. You're seriously going to trust bureaucrats to lead the innovation of new antibiotics? If this was true then why isn't Europe producing these new innovations? Let's face it, most of it is done in America where the market is freer.

and aren't interested in treating it cheaply when they could treat it expensively and guarantee longterm profits.

One word: competition. It drives down prices and makes practices more efficient as companies compete with each other. Just look at how mobile phones have evolved from a luxury to the point where even poor people can get smart phones with Internet access. Your argument might work if it was a monopoly. But it isn't.

And if taxpayers fully funded/subsidized medical research/care with the goal of finding as many ways cheaply treat patients/diseases and cure what can be cured so that the tax burden becomes as small as possible, imagine what would happen as companies search for new antibiotics!

Which, by the way, we're already finding so the article you linked is already outdated: http://qz.com/324506/the-looming-sup...is-technology/

That article admits it's not fit for human use yet.

not sure why in every argument about health obamacare gets pulled in, the system isn't perfect but can hardly be blamed for pharmaseutical companies holding back on developing new drugs until they can make a huge profit on them. This has been the case since forever

You still think of profit as a dirty word, but it's what provides incentive. Why would anyone invest billions upon billions of dollars in anything if they can't get more out of it? It doesn't make sense.

Like I dunno about you but if I couldn't increase my money through investment I'd just spend it on luxury cars, mansions and hookers. Is that what you want? Wouldn't you rather these rich guys hold back immediate gratification to make something useful for the world?

[Becquerel]

I just wanted to chime in here as a healthcare researcher- antibiotics development cycles and costs and 'lacking the economic incentive' have very little to do with government regulation and more to do with the kinds of chronic conditions our aging population deals with today. Antibiotics are used only for short courses, have defined durations, and in some cases would not be prescribed and instead would be reserved as a last line antibiotic. Meaning, the potential for profit on these is small because they are taken on a short basis. Pharmaceutical companies (at least in the US, I can't speak to world wide trends) much prefer putting R&D money into drugs that treat chronic conditions so will be taken for years for many patients.The best examples here being blood pressure drugs, diabetes drugs, and erectile dysfunction drugs, which make up an enormous share of the income of these companies.

If you want antibiotic R&D to be economically feasible, a free market won't do it because of these chronic conditions and the enormous amounts of money available treating them.

Some quick data- of the best selling drugs in 2013 (list here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tical_products ) the first antibiotic to show up is at 64th. Antibiotics are not moneymakers. Anti depressants, drugs to help with auto immune disorders, and other long course drugs are worth much more in R&D costs.

[Dolus]

We found an antibiotic that is resistant to resistance. We are constantly making leaps in science and medicine.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/287745.php