General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSavings Lives Doesn’t Count If There’s No Profit!
Another example of the failure of American-style capitalism appeared recently in a New York Times report. There is a generic drug, transexamic acid, which was shown in a large multi-country trial in 2010 to save the lives of hemorrhaging trauma patients by slowing their bleeding.
The British and American armies began using the drug immediately with great success, saving lives of badly injured soldiers. It is used in British hospitals and is carried in British ambulances.
The drug could save an estimated 4,000 lives in the United States each year
victims of car crashes, stabbings, and shootings. Yet American hospitals have been slow to begin using it.
Why? The drug is cheap. So cheap that there is little profit in it for its manufacturer, and so it has not marketed the drug, hasnt pushed it. And if a pharmaceutical company doesnt push a drug, it doesnt get used.
Finally, however, hospitals in several cities are now debating its use. But in most others, it is not being considered.
This is a scandal and yet another indictment of American-style capitalism. Theres nothing wrong with making a profit. But profit should never be a factor when it comes to providing health care.
If everyone in the health care field
from drug manufacturers to hospitals to doctors groups
were by law required to be not-for-profit organizations, we would not have many of the types of problems that we have with health care in the United States.
To those who will say that taking away the profit incentive would negatively impact innovation, I say, nonsense. Three reasons. First, the people inventing drugs or delivering services do so because they are motivated and have professional pride. Second, drug companies would continue to innovate because new products and increased sales leads to greater security for its labor force. Third, it might actually increase innovation because a drug would not be deep-sixed because it wasnt going to be sufficiently profitable.
Taking the profit motive out of American health care would more than likely greatly improve the entire system and the quality of care Americans receive, which contrary to the posturing of some politicians is consistently shown in international studies to rank rather low compared to the other industrialized countries.
For more on this and other issues, see my blog, http://PreservingAmericanGreatness.blogspot.com
RC
(25,592 posts)Private health care, one payer, the Government. It works in Canada.
Eliminate the middle person - The for profit, corporations acting as medical second guessers to your medical doctor, to pad their bottom line.
Stan Smith
(97 posts)I am happy that President Obama has got the ball rolling on healthcare, but we need single payer. The rich jerks can afford to forgo just one vacation, and take that money to help those who need it. What the dense idiots on the right don't understand is with single payer they will benefit greatly, instead of forking over money to an insurance company that uses their premiums to line some fat cat's pocket, they can pay that same money to the government and have excellent health care.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Maybe the truth is they are dependent on pharma reps for ideas and without a profit incentive to educate the information simply doesn't get out.
That goes to lack of time or effort on the part of professionals. Making it all non profit won't get this drug widely distributed either.
natrlron
(177 posts)There shouldn't need to be a profit incentive in the health care field. We're talking about people's lives here.
dkf
(37,305 posts)How are you supposed to know about the advances in your field if no one tells you about it?
It's strange to me that you can be upset about that. What is your solution?
jwirr
(39,215 posts)happiness, health etc. This has always been the problem the true cost of most economic actions is not correct without taking into account the quality of life.