DEA classifies marijuana as Schedule I. Schedule I drugs have no accepted medical use.
Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
Heroin has medical uses too but, unless the DEA accepts them, Schedule I it remains.
GasBandit
Staff member
On the list of "Federal Agencies that need to be eliminated," the DEA is pretty high up there.
But without the DEA, Breaking Bad would've been a lot less interesting.
I don't know about "eliminated," but it could definitely benefit from being scaled way back.
Also there's the matter of what, exactly, they do with all the money and drugs they confiscate, isn't there?
--Patrick
The show goes out of its way to display how this is untrue.It also would've been a lot less interesting if the US had better medical care.
GasBandit
Staff member
It mystifies me that people think they shouldn't have to pay for health care just because everybody needs it. Everybody needs food. Everybody needs housing. You still have to pay for that, as well. You don't have a "right" to any of it.It also would've been a lot less interesting if the US had better medical care.
The real issue is that it costs so much, and the system that divorces people from the actual cost of the service is largely to blame for that - and the nightmare vine-choked forest of government interference in that system.
Someone should report this forum to the FBI for threatening to eliminate over 10,000 federal employees.
GasBandit
Staff member
Canada's also got a much lower cancer survival rate, and a crippling lack of access to things like MRIs - they routinely have to send patients across the border to the US to get them seen. Their system only works because they have our system to lean on while it limps. Who will the US's socialist medicine lean on? For that matter, after that, who will Canada's? To say nothing of the fact their national security is basically a gigantic trillion dollar US subsidy, freeing up tax money to go to their health care, so in a manner of speaking, the US taxpayer is subsidizing Canadian health care.
Actually, every taxpayer pays for medical care.
I know this is anecdotal evidence, but I've lived in countries that had universal health care. If you get sick, you get yourself seen and fixed up. No BS. No over-inflated prescription meds. I will gladly take those systems with a heaping side of dependence any day.
Btw, medication in the US is so expensive precisely BECAUSE the government is not allowed to interfere.
GasBandit
Staff member
A little thing called drug patents disagrees with you.
I'm still working on my first.
That is, the first time through the entire series on DVD (since the father-in-law acquired it at some point). Only problem is that some of the discs are bad, so we skip over whole months' worth. Maybe some day we'll be able to see the whole thing.
--Patrick
GasBandit
Staff member
There's a 47 gig torrent called the "Babylon 5 Complete Collection" which has all the episodes and movies, and some of the episodes are re-pieced back together from multiple sources. So sometimes the quality's a little patchwork, but it's all there, and all watchable.
But if they don't get the chance to exclusively market a drug, wouldn't it make it too costly to develop them?
http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-multiple-factors-cause-high-prescription-drug-prices-in-us-2015-9
1. No price controls
The US government doesn't regulate prices, unlike many countries where government agencies negotiate prices for every drug.
In the US, drugmakers set wholesale prices based mostly on what competing brand-name drugs cost and whether their new drug is better, said Les Funtleyder, healthcare portfolio manager at E Squared Asset Management.
2. Lengthy patents
Patents last longer than in other countries, usually giving a drug's maker exclusivity that prevents competition for 20 years from when the patent is issued. Because patents are filed while drugs are still in testing, that clock starts ticking long before the drug goes on sale.
Typically, new drugs end up with a monopoly for roughly a dozen years.
Their makers generally increase their prices every year, by about 5% or more. Those increases add up and become bigger as the expiration of the patent approaches.
Those are just two of the six reasons. The point is developed countries wouldn't allow something so egregious as obscene price increases for Epipens like what's happening right now.
1. No price controls
The US government doesn't regulate prices, unlike many countries where government agencies negotiate prices for every drug.
In the US, drugmakers set wholesale prices based mostly on what competing brand-name drugs cost and whether their new drug is better, said Les Funtleyder, healthcare portfolio manager at E Squared Asset Management.
2. Lengthy patents
Patents last longer than in other countries, usually giving a drug's maker exclusivity that prevents competition for 20 years from when the patent is issued. Because patents are filed while drugs are still in testing, that clock starts ticking long before the drug goes on sale.
Typically, new drugs end up with a monopoly for roughly a dozen years.
Their makers generally increase their prices every year, by about 5% or more. Those increases add up and become bigger as the expiration of the patent approaches.
Those are just two of the six reasons. The point is developed countries wouldn't allow something so egregious as obscene price increases for Epipens like what's happening right now.
GasBandit
Staff member
There's a balance to be struck. You have to look at it pragmatically. It's not like egregiously long patent protection times have led to amazing new cures for everything - they're mostly re-curing things with new cocktails and marketing them on daytime TV. So, maybe don't get rid of patents, but shorten them drastically.
That second one, lengthy patents, is what I was taking about in my previous post. That length is set by the government. So you can't really say the government "has no hand" in med prices.
As for the Epipen dust-up, it is largely coming about because the FDA is refusing to approve alternatives. Again, government.
GasBandit
Staff member
That particular blog post, however, is mostly copy and pasted from other articles, which are also linked/embedded in the article, from sources such as CNN, forbes, NBC and Slate.
I was not linking to them as an authoritative source, more as a shortcut. Somebody else already mostly said what I would, and even provided links to sources.
No it doesn't:
http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/all-cancers/by-country/
This is MORTALITY rate for all cancers:
USA: 130.74/100,000
Canada: 129.21/100,000
BARELY different, but Canada lower, not higher.
And in case you cite the 5-year survival rate, I have a YouTube for you:
So, see mortality rate, not 5-year survival, or other "from when we detect it" metric. That's what matters comparing countries.
GasBandit
Staff member
That website is REALLY hard on the eyes.... and I can't watch a 5 minute video right now.... heh... anyway, you got your link, I got mine.
Most Cancer Survival Rates in USA better than Europe and Canada
Survival rate depends on WHEN you detect it. MORTALITY rate is only affected by cure or life extension. You guys test like CRAZY and it has almost no (not zero, but near it) effect on actual outcomes. That's the crux of the video. If you only cite survival rates, you're fooling yourself.
THAT'S why people citing the "superiority" of the USA system cite them. They are misleading for a populace. They are only useful AFTER you've been diagnosed to an individual patient, not as a measure of health care effectiveness.
THAT'S why people citing the "superiority" of the USA system cite them. They are misleading for a populace. They are only useful AFTER you've been diagnosed to an individual patient, not as a measure of health care effectiveness.
GasBandit
Staff member
I'm not sure I follow, are you saying the statistics are including people who are tested but not diagnosed?
Take the 5 minutes for the video. Way more worth it than any explanation I could type out. See his example of Thumb Cancer.
GasBandit
Staff member
Ok, I got home and watched the video. I think I understand a little better now, but mortality rate seems a bit... odd? It tracks all deaths from a cause per 100k of the entire population? Not just those who are diagnosed?
Anyone who's watched this show through episode 4 knows Walt has a way to pay for it without cooking meth. The healthcare thing kinda dies as the show shifts into the real problem.It also would've been a lot less interesting if the US had better medical care.
Walt's pride.
A little more on the EpiPen dust up. A number of senators went on record condemning Mylan and their CEO, Heather Bresch. Daddy Joe Manchin wasn't one of them.
Before that, there was the matter of moving the corporate HQ out of the country as a tax dodge.
Before before that, there was the phony MBA scandal when her daddy was governor that cost the then-president of WVU (a close family friend) his job.
Before that, there was the matter of moving the corporate HQ out of the country as a tax dodge.
Before before that, there was the phony MBA scandal when her daddy was governor that cost the then-president of WVU (a close family friend) his job.
GasBandit
Staff member
Crony Capitalism must be destroyed wherever it is found.
I've seen the whole series. In the first few episodes he really didn't have a way to pay for it. That's why he asked to go on a ride-along and started cooking in the first place.
Exactly, Walt's a prick and always was a prick.
? He starts cooking because he's in a "fuck the world" mindset. Hell, the first person To suggest that he's doing it to leave money for his family is Pinkman, and Walt just kind of goes along with it.
And we see him in this mood before he gets diagnosed. The cancer was just the straw that broke the camel's back and gave him the push.
As the author/presenter says, it's because it's not the same statistic. They're not "inverses" or something of each other. Survival rate can be really REALLY odd. Take something like a gunshot wound. You either survive it, or you don't, right? Survival rates there are HIGHLY correlated to the mortality rate, and quickly... for the most part. But there are cases of lead poisoning in cases where the slug is left in (that happens, and is accepted medical practice) where they die DECADES later. Of a gunshot wound, but it just took a LOT longer. But Survival rates are "5 years out" (or 10 sometimes) for Cancer. But detection affects that number, as well as treatment. Hence why mortality rates are more of an "Aggregate over the years" regardless of how long it takes a particular disease/condition to kill you. Compared year-on-year, you can tell if it's just detection is getting better, or if you're actually reducing the overall number of deaths due to a specific cause. Yes the numbers are smaller because it's based on the WHOLE population, but it's more accurate year-on-year that you're having an effect through policy. The Thumb Cancer example is great, in that the survival rate skyrocketed, but the mortality rate stayed exactly the same. That was the point of the example.
So because of the HUGE amount of money spent on detection in the USA, your 5-year survival rates for many cancers is better, and even very markedly so versus many "socialized medicine" countries. But your MORTALITY rates (% of population that will die from it each year) are barely better at all, and only in some cases. According to my original link, MORE of your population per year dies of all cancers than in Canada at the least, which was your original comparison.