Antibiotic resistance - the death of socialized medicine

[Noomz]

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.

The problem isn't socialized medicine... Sheesh, so ignorant. Are you still afraid of communists? As someone else pointed out, what you write actually makes a good argument against capitalism and the complete socialization of medicine, since the reason they don't want to make new medicine to help the world is MONEY.

All anti-biotics will become obsolete in time, it's inevitable and there's nothing we can do about it but try and make new ones or find something else.

[Miyani]

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.

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.

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.

Britain's first privately run hospital is now bust so good luck with that competition - http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0UO2UB20150109

As people have said antibiotic resistance comes in mostly at the GP level with GPs perscribing antibiotics for viruses (they don't work on viruses) instead of bacteria infections, people don't finish the full course of antibiotics because they feel better before the infection has fully cleared, this leads to the bacteria becoming immune and coming back with a vengeance. It doesn't help having farmers feeding their livestock antibiotics when they don't need them. This is basic knowledge on evolution...

[apepi]

Your deduction is horrible. How would single payer be worse? You just mention the the big pharma lack to do the incentives with even the non single payer system we have right now, why would single payer make it any worse? Your train of thought is horrible.

Single payer would not reduce the cost of it, it would just make it simpler, the same amount of money would go in and out to the big pharma companies.

[Deleted]

Britain's first privately run hospital is now bust so good luck with that competition - http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0UO2UB20150109

That actually seems like an argument against the NHS. It may be a private company, but it's running an NHS owned hospital and they have to play by NHS rules. Apparently that makes it unprofitable so they're pulling out.

[RicardoZ]

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.

To be quite frank, I find this pretty hard to believe. In a free market I think that having a drug that could cure serious conditions like this would probably be the best thing you could have. I'm not sure that if I had the cure for some horrible disease I would turn down the prestige and riches that go along with having cured it because I'm happy with the money I'm making treating it already. It would go against every capitalistic instinct I have.

[Independent voter]

The way I understand the problem is American pharmaceutical companies develop new antibiotics. Thing is they don't make as much money, they make some money but not as much as say for a new high blood pressure medicine. Why? Because you only have to take antibiotics once, high blood pressure medicine you have to take for the rest of your life.

[Lylandra]

I don't want to state this again... but you *do* realize that public healthcare is a thing since 200 years ago?

Also, research costs could be less in the US than in Europe. The payment of a chemical engineer seems about the same, but maybe the corresponding taxes/fees aren't. Still, again, companies like Novartis, Sanofi, Bayer etc. research and operate in Europe. Since... I don't know... 200+ years for some (Merck started as a pharmacy in 16xx).

"Socialized medical systems" and corresponding pharmaceutical companies over here are almost as old as the independence of the USA. Just sayin'

[Deleted]

Your deduction is horrible. How would single payer be worse? You just mention the the big pharma lack to do the incentives with even the non single payer system we have right now, why would single payer make it any worse?

As I said, single payer comes with price controls. If it costs 100$ bucks to produce a product that can sell max for 50$ by law, guess what? They're not going to make it. They're going to say "screw you, I'm going to invest in something else where I can sell the product for as much as people will pay for it".

So yeah it's making things worse and creating even less incentives for "big pharma" to ever consider antibiotic research.

[Noomz]

Well let's see:


- 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.

Because they get a lot better money in other countries and better terms. It has nothing to do with socialized medicine, since many of them end up working in the public sector on other countries. This is the case in my own country, where a lot of doctors are "imported", so to speak. They want better pay, they want more solid work, so they come here. And we want them to come, because we've got too few people working in healthcare.


There are all sorts of deficiences you can find online in various articles documenting the failures of privatised medicine.
Both systems have pros and cons, but I vastly prefer a system that doesn't want to make a profit on my health.

[Miyani]

That actually seems like an argument against the NHS. It may be a private company, but it's running an NHS owned hospital and they have to play by NHS rules. Apparently that makes it unprofitable so they're pulling out.

Because leaving people to die who can't afford healthcare is a better option in life???

[Deleted]

I vastly prefer a system that doesn't want to make a profit on my health.

Profit is not a dirty word, especially when these peopel are literally saving your life.

Profit is what drives people to produce quality goods and services.

[Noomz]

That actually seems like an argument against the NHS. It may be a private company, but it's running an NHS owned hospital and they have to play by NHS rules. Apparently that makes it unprofitable so they're pulling out.

You thinking that profit and health should ever compete with one another is frankly shocking and appauling.

I've seen what the privatized elderly care has done in my country when it wants to earn money over caring for their patients. It's been a big problem for a long time and it ain't getting better, when places are so badly staffed that elderly people can die in their shower and nobody will notice for a day or more, meanwhile the CEO's of the companies that own those places are having the time of their life earning millions.

Profit and health, should NEVER compete.

[Deleted]

Because leaving people to die who can't afford healthcare is a better option in life???

Listen dude, there's thousands of stories coming out of Eastern Europe where the government can't (or won't) pay for someone's treatment so he has to beg online for 30000 euro so he can get treated in a private hospital.

The idea that socialized healthcare prevents deaths is bogus. What about the deaths from increased malpractice / poor sanitation due to poor government management. Wht about deaths for 1 hour ambulance response times for immediate emergencies?

[Noomz]

Profit is not a dirty word, especially when these peopel are literally saving your life.

Profit is what drives people to produce quality goods and services.

I'd like to think that people work in healthcare because they care about people. But I guess that's just me.

[Anium]

News flash: We can make new antibiotics!
Infact scientists have just come manufactured new samples in the US for the first time since the big boom of antibiotics since the 60s /70s.
The world of science and medicine is still very very new.
I'm no nay sayer!

[Noomz]

Listen dude, there's thousands of stories coming out of Eastern Europe where the government can't (or won't) pay for someone's treatment so he has to beg online for 30000 euro so he can get treated in a private hospital.

The idea that socialized healthcare prevents deaths is bogus. What about the deaths from increased malpractice / poor sanitation due to poor government management. Wht about deaths for 1 hour ambulance response times for immediate emergencies?

Because their countries are poor and their infrastructure is terrible and their governments corrupt.

[Deleted]

I'd like to think that people work in healthcare because they care about people. But I guess that's just me.

Personally I don't really care what their motivation is. I care about results. Thoughts don't matter much and I don't think it's wrong to want to make a lot of money from what you're good at. Sure charity is nice, but it has to come voluntarily. Forcing people in a position where they can't earn as much as they could through voluntary trade usually creates resentment.

And speaking of results, isn't it strange how all the elite (the politicians, the rich people, including "champagne socialists"), rarely do they ever use the public option. They always go for private hospitals because they know they get better care and better conditions.

[grexly75]

I find it funny that the OP blames antibiotic resistant bacteria on a healthcare system and completely ignores the fact that antibiotics are used by farmers to increase the yield from the livestock (mainly chickens but in other livestock) and also the fact that doctors over prescribe and or that the patient never finishes the course of antibiotics when they are prescribed..

[Miyani]

Heres an american doctors experiance with the free healthcare here in England -

https://drjengunter.wordpress.com/20...mergency-room/

Our doctors do what they are trained to do and thats help people, not because of money but because they are doctors.

[Deleted]

I find it funny that the OP blames antibiotic resistant bacteria on a healthcare system and completely ignores the fact that antibiotics are used by farmers to increase the yield from the livestock (mainly chickens but in other livestock) and also the fact that doctors over prescribe and or that the patient never finishes the course of antibiotics when they are prescribed..

I don't ignore it. I just point out that companies currently have no incentives to develop new antibiotics. Now why is that? Well it involves long term investment so they can't be sure they're going to get a return on their investment.

If you want to fix the problem (or at least try to) nationalizing the industry is the last thing you want to do. That is the kiss of death to innovation. Instead you should look at the tax system (maybe it's too burdensome) and reconsider some of the regulations in the industry that make it harder for pharmaceutical companies to operate and for new ones to enter the market.