FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Can we sustain a free NHS?
Can we sustain a free NHS?
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Can the NHS continue to be free when the medicines they need, come from private businesses? It seems to me that big Pharmaceutical companies are holding our NHS hostage with the price of medicine. It seems they hold all the cards.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
No but if we nationalised the drug manufacturers that would help. Nobody should be allowed to personally profit from those things essential to life - water, fuel, medicine. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rsIdiotWoman
over a year ago
Bedworth |
"No but if we nationalised the drug manufacturers that would help. Nobody should be allowed to personally profit from those things essential to life - water, fuel, medicine."
I agree completely. Unfortunately there's bugger all we can do about it, water, gas, electricity are all privatised and a few people are already making huge sums of money from the things that are essential to life |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"No but if we nationalised the drug manufacturers that would help. Nobody should be allowed to personally profit from those things essential to life - water, fuel, medicine."
Who would then invest in research and development? I'm no apologist for the drug companies, but there has to be the possibility for them of profit down the line to justify the expenditure on R&D (which is huge and a lot of which never results in a product).
And where do you draw the line to define "essential to life"? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Can the NHS continue to be free when the medicines they need, come from private businesses? It seems to me that big Pharmaceutical companies are holding our NHS hostage with the price of medicine. It seems they hold all the cards.."
. How can the big pharmaceutical companies be holding the NHS hostage . There is no compulsion to buy the drugs that they produce and they will have spent billions of pounds developing them. We do need to charge more for some services and have a rigorous clamp down on health tourists . It would be totally wrong to penalise these companies and potentially damage their research and developnent programmes .
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Can the NHS continue to be free when the medicines they need, come from private businesses? It seems to me that big Pharmaceutical companies are holding our NHS hostage with the price of medicine. It seems they hold all the cards... How can the big pharmaceutical companies be holding the NHS hostage . There is no compulsion to buy the drugs that they produce and they will have spent billions of pounds developing them. We do need to charge more for some services and have a rigorous clamp down on health tourists . It would be totally wrong to penalise these companies and potentially damage their research and developnent programmes ."
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andACouple
over a year ago
glasgow |
No. But the parties know it would be political suicide to come out and say it so instead the NHS struggles on without the real changes that are needed to address the problems it faces. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"No but if we nationalised the drug manufacturers that would help. Nobody should be allowed to personally profit from those things essential to life - water, fuel, medicine."
Aside from the very obvious fact that drugs companies are not xclusively within the bounds in the UK! No government anywhere in the world would take the research and development risks that private companies do. The political fall out from "wasted" money on filed experiments would undermine any democratic govt.
Look what is happening in our country with one side blaming the other for failures in one department or another. Imagine that with billions being "wasted" on file r & d. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"No but if we nationalised the drug manufacturers that would help. Nobody should be allowed to personally profit from those things essential to life - water, fuel, medicine.
Who would then invest in research and development? I'm no apologist for the drug companies, but there has to be the possibility for them of profit down the line to justify the expenditure on R&D (which is huge and a lot of which never results in a product).
And where do you draw the line to define "essential to life"? "
To add....you can't nationalise international companies... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"No but if we nationalised the drug manufacturers that would help. Nobody should be allowed to personally profit from those things essential to life - water, fuel, medicine.
Who would then invest in research and development? I'm no apologist for the drug companies, but there has to be the possibility for them of profit down the line to justify the expenditure on R&D (which is huge and a lot of which never results in a product).
And where do you draw the line to define "essential to life"? "
I don't have an issue with competitive markets. I have an issue with personal profit from those things essential to life. If the profits of oil, water, electricity were reinvested in public good things would be very different.
The social enterprise model was a start of trying to generate more ethical business but has only been half heatedly thought through. It needs a radical change of thought. . and more crucially priority.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No but if we nationalised the drug manufacturers that would help. Nobody should be allowed to personally profit from those things essential to life - water, fuel, medicine."
. I have shares in at least two drug manufacturers and as far as I am concerned I am funding future research and development work. At least these private companies are highly efficient and everything that they do is monitored via shareholders through the AGMs . Nationalisation would lead to inefficiencies and wasted money
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"No but if we nationalised the drug manufacturers that would help. Nobody should be allowed to personally profit from those things essential to life - water, fuel, medicine.
I agree completely. Unfortunately there's bugger all we can do about it, water, gas, electricity are all privatised and a few people are already making huge sums of money from the things that are essential to life"
How can you nationalise an industry where the vast majority of companies are not even British?
Britain has systematically failed with Nationalised industry and it is failing the NHS. Our system of government means that everything is held hostage by the Treasury and the Treasury is controlled by the incumbent government. This means that every time there is an election one side blames the other for wastage and inefficiency.
The only way that the NHS and any other future nationally operated service to be controlled is to completely ring fence it and make it autonomous to government. The NHS for example should be separated from the Treasury and get "paid" a pre agreed and incrementally increasing fee every year. It should be responsible for its own organisation and additional funding when required. This will mean a massive re-organisation but far better that the service remains not for profit but managed and organised outside the realms of any sitting government. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"No. But the parties know it would be political suicide to come out and say it so instead the NHS struggles on without the real changes that are needed to address the problems it faces."
This is exactly right. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If they were highly efficient this discussion would be pointless."
. Why would nationalisation make them more efficient ? It is always the reverse in my opinion. Knowing that your employer will go under if you do not succeed provides a motivation to achieve results .
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No but if we nationalised the drug manufacturers that would help. Nobody should be allowed to personally profit from those things essential to life - water, fuel, medicine."
But where then does the money come from for pharmaceutical research?
Think of how many clinical trials there are before something is found to work. Medical research is very expensive. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The NHS isn't free. It's paid for by us.
Everything is a business, including the NHS. Until it's run as a business, efficiently and with the future in mind, it'll continue to suffer.
The amount of waste where public money is involved is mind blowing. Money is never the problem - mismanagement is. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
For those choosing to read only what they want to see - I did say nationalisation wasn't the term I really meant.. and explained in some detail what I had meant.
If you think the current system is working then why is there a problem? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
If you think the current system is working then why is there a problem?"
The issue is that there is no 'perfect' system.
I don't like the idea of profit from healthcare but if profit is the motivation to keep plying the research then so be it.
Although recently I've heard all sorts of conspiracies about treatments/cures that are being kept quiet about because of lack of profit. How true that is I have no idea. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *arry247Couple
over a year ago
Wakefield |
"Can the NHS continue to be free when the medicines they need, come from private businesses? It seems to me that big Pharmaceutical companies are holding our NHS hostage with the price of medicine. It seems they hold all the cards.."
The NHS is not free it is paid for by the taxpayers.
The pharmaceutical companies pay out huge sums of money to develop new drugs and need to be recompensed in order they can develop more.
The price of the drugs to the NHS is reached by negotiation and is like other prices subject to change and market forces.
The system by and large works well, the problems occur when new drugs need to be developed to combat new diseases and when the numbers of people who would benefit from the drug is so small the costs of development outweigh the demand.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ummersun99Woman
over a year ago
North Yorkshire by the Sea |
Yes, for the *UK citizens and those with legitimate reasons to be here/use it*. And just because it doesn't always serve us the private standard we want (seen immediately, in a hotel type room, with the cheapest/minimum products and equipment when it actually comes to your body/treatment because the bottom line is the profit margin and if you come back, thats more money so okay too) it doesn't mean we have to give it up, and become like other countries where the wealthy are taken care of and the poor suffer because they are poor. I for one, don't want to go backwards against humanity. As for funding it better, running it down to justify privatization isn't the way to go about it, when the biggest user group are the elderly not immigrants (fact not criticism). I suggest identifying those without legitimate reasons to use it and recharging. And increasing the pool of people and companies paying taxes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Agree there's no perfect system but that's not a reason not to try and improve one.
There are other ways of motivating people to advance medical science than cash fortunes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ummersun99Woman
over a year ago
North Yorkshire by the Sea |
And I missed the glaringly obvious, commit to improving the management of it, Rather than political football playing. It's not the service's fault our voted politicians as spineless Muppets who don't want to address it when the staff in the servíce can see and share what it needs. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ummersun99Woman
over a year ago
North Yorkshire by the Sea |
"And I missed the glaringly obvious, commit to improving the management of it, Rather than political football playing. It's not the service's fault our voted politicians as spineless Muppets who don't want to address it when the staff in the servíce can see and share what it needs. "
Are not as* |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"No but if we nationalised the drug manufacturers that would help. Nobody should be allowed to personally profit from those things essential to life - water, fuel, medicine.
Who would then invest in research and development? I'm no apologist for the drug companies, but there has to be the possibility for them of profit down the line to justify the expenditure on R&D (which is huge and a lot of which never results in a product).
"
Most new drugs entering the market are not really new, the compounds were developed years ago. A lot of R&D is done by charities and Universities at vast expense to the tax payer. There are over 200 Health Charities in the UK, from Cancer research to Alzheimers, and they all rely on donations for R&D. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"No but if we nationalised the drug manufacturers that would help. Nobody should be allowed to personally profit from those things essential to life - water, fuel, medicine.
Who would then invest in research and development? I'm no apologist for the drug companies, but there has to be the possibility for them of profit down the line to justify the expenditure on R&D (which is huge and a lot of which never results in a product).
Most new drugs entering the market are not really new, the compounds were developed years ago. A lot of R&D is done by charities and Universities at vast expense to the tax payer. There are over 200 Health Charities in the UK, from Cancer research to Alzheimers, and they all rely on donations for R&D."
If they were developed years ago, aren't they out of patent by now? Yes a lot IS done at vast expense to the tax payer and charitable donations. That expense would be exponentially more if the drug companies (for all their many faults) weren't also at it too. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Yes. There are £multibillions in taxes that are not paid, more than covering shortfalls, with massive surpluses. The majority of the population recently polled would also be willing to pay more tax to continue the service.
Fragmentation and semi privatisation is cause for it to struggle, with less efficiencies and purchasing power.
It's a pity the EU cant use its power somehow to influence medication prices downwards for nation states.
The need for new antibiotics and the lack of efforts looking for them highlights how privately profit run pharmaceutical businesses don't potentially serve manking that well. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The NHS would collapse without charities - that's just as wrong as people making profit. An essential service shouldn't have to rely on charity.
I know people that have retrained and dedicated their lives to medical research after family have been affected.
These people and all that charity are plenty of proof that personal profit is not essential.
On the other hand it's one of the few things we can still lead the world in - we should be doing everything possible to motivate and inspire kids towards it as a career.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"Yes. There are £multibillions in taxes that are not paid, more than covering shortfalls, with massive surpluses. The majority of the population recently polled would also be willing to pay more tax to continue the service.
Fragmentation and semi privatisation is cause for it to struggle, with less efficiencies and purchasing power.
It's a pity the EU cant use its power somehow to influence medication prices downwards for nation states.
The need for new antibiotics and the lack of efforts looking for them highlights how privately profit run pharmaceutical businesses don't potentially serve manking that well. "
But the answer is not surely to just throw ever more money at it? We are all being encouraged to be more frugal, less wasteful and to respect our resources - why should the NHS be any different?
Throwing money at the NHS just kicks the can a bit further down the road and puts off the day when a politician has to have the balls to stand up and tell it the way it is.
Protecting something that is precious need not just involve wrapping it in cotton wool and trying to make sure that it never grows up and changes to adapt to the world around it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eavenNhellCouple
over a year ago
carrbrook stalybridge |
"Yes. There are £multibillions in taxes that are not paid, more than covering shortfalls, with massive surpluses. The majority of the population recently polled would also be willing to pay more tax to continue the service.
Fragmentation and semi privatisation is cause for it to struggle, with less efficiencies and purchasing power.
It's a pity the EU cant use its power somehow to influence medication prices downwards for nation states.
The need for new antibiotics and the lack of efforts looking for them highlights how privately profit run pharmaceutical businesses don't potentially serve manking that well. "
this but unfortunatley none of the oarties are brave enoug to come out and say they will raise taxes to pay for the nhs one because it would be seen as a vote loser and two because their big buisness backers would cut them off at the knees for killing there gravy train |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ummersun99Woman
over a year ago
North Yorkshire by the Sea |
"Yes. There are £multibillions in taxes that are not paid, more than covering shortfalls, with massive surpluses. The majority of the population recently polled would also be willing to pay more tax to continue the service.
Fragmentation and semi privatisation is cause for it to struggle, with less efficiencies and purchasing power.
It's a pity the EU cant use its power somehow to influence medication prices downwards for nation states.
The need for new antibiotics and the lack of efforts looking for them highlights how privately profit run pharmaceutical businesses don't potentially serve manking that well.
But the answer is not surely to just throw ever more money at it? We are all being encouraged to be more frugal, less wasteful and to respect our resources - why should the NHS be any different?
Throwing money at the NHS just kicks the can a bit further down the road and puts off the day when a politician has to have the balls to stand up and tell it the way it is.
Protecting something that is precious need not just involve wrapping it in cotton wool and trying to make sure that it never grows up and changes to adapt to the world around it. "
Protecting something precious? Is that what the Tories are planning by privatising it? Really? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ummersun99Woman
over a year ago
North Yorkshire by the Sea |
"No but if we nationalised the drug manufacturers that would help. Nobody should be allowed to personally profit from those things essential to life - water, fuel, medicine.
I agree completely. Unfortunately there's bugger all we can do about it, water, gas, electricity are all privatised and a few people are already making huge sums of money from the things that are essential to life
How can you nationalise an industry where the vast majority of companies are not even British?
Britain has systematically failed with Nationalised industry and it is failing the NHS. Our system of government means that everything is held hostage by the Treasury and the Treasury is controlled by the incumbent government. This means that every time there is an election one side blames the other for wastage and inefficiency.
The only way that the NHS and any other future nationally operated service to be controlled is to completely ring fence it and make it autonomous to government. The NHS for example should be separated from the Treasury and get "paid" a pre agreed and incrementally increasing fee every year. It should be responsible for its own organisation and additional funding when required. This will mean a massive re-organisation but far better that the service remains not for profit but managed and organised outside the realms of any sitting government."
this is much more feasible than politicians believe, I really think. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"Yes. There are £multibillions in taxes that are not paid, more than covering shortfalls, with massive surpluses. The majority of the population recently polled would also be willing to pay more tax to continue the service.
Fragmentation and semi privatisation is cause for it to struggle, with less efficiencies and purchasing power.
It's a pity the EU cant use its power somehow to influence medication prices downwards for nation states.
The need for new antibiotics and the lack of efforts looking for them highlights how privately profit run pharmaceutical businesses don't potentially serve manking that well.
But the answer is not surely to just throw ever more money at it? We are all being encouraged to be more frugal, less wasteful and to respect our resources - why should the NHS be any different?
Throwing money at the NHS just kicks the can a bit further down the road and puts off the day when a politician has to have the balls to stand up and tell it the way it is.
Protecting something that is precious need not just involve wrapping it in cotton wool and trying to make sure that it never grows up and changes to adapt to the world around it.
Protecting something precious? Is that what the Tories are planning by privatising it? Really? "
The problem is that if anyone suggests any change of any description, they get lambasted and ultimately accused of trying to turn it into an American type healthcare system.
Ironically it was the other lot who set the NHS down the road of privatisation, but it does not need to be that way. Autonomous yes, private yes, for profit NO.
My opinion is that the NHS should be reorganised as a standalone and ring fenced entity, free of political interference. One controlling body across the country who oversee individual Trusts and all are responsible for setting their own budget requirements and working efficiently. It may mean that A&E charges are brought in and every hospital has a patient accounting department - but let those decisions be made by the NHS and not the government. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eithoWoman
over a year ago
Chatham |
Yes we can absolutely. We spend far less as a proportion of GDP than the French and Germans on healthcare, so increasing funding to their levels is entirely feasible for starters.
Then consider that it's been estimated that up to 70% of the NHS overall budget is spent on entirely preventable conditions. If we can modify the behaviours that lead to these diseases, the NHS would have more surplus funding than any other system in the world. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The NHS would collapse without charities - that's just as wrong as people making profit. An essential service shouldn't have to rely on charity.
I know people that have retrained and dedicated their lives to medical research after family have been affected.
These people and all that charity are plenty of proof that personal profit is not essential.
On the other hand it's one of the few things we can still lead the world in - we should be doing everything possible to motivate and inspire kids towards it as a career.
One problem with all that so called Charity is that most Charities actually pass on quite a small percentage of their Donation, quite a large chunk is taken for "Administration" as in high Salaries for senior Management.
Not much Different to the NHS or any other Business really.
Gimp
"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ummersun99Woman
over a year ago
North Yorkshire by the Sea |
"Yes. There are £multibillions in taxes that are not paid, more than covering shortfalls, with massive surpluses. The majority of the population recently polled would also be willing to pay more tax to continue the service.
Fragmentation and semi privatisation is cause for it to struggle, with less efficiencies and purchasing power.
It's a pity the EU cant use its power somehow to influence medication prices downwards for nation states.
The need for new antibiotics and the lack of efforts looking for them highlights how privately profit run pharmaceutical businesses don't potentially serve manking that well.
But the answer is not surely to just throw ever more money at it? We are all being encouraged to be more frugal, less wasteful and to respect our resources - why should the NHS be any different?
Throwing money at the NHS just kicks the can a bit further down the road and puts off the day when a politician has to have the balls to stand up and tell it the way it is.
Protecting something that is precious need not just involve wrapping it in cotton wool and trying to make sure that it never grows up and changes to adapt to the world around it.
Protecting something precious? Is that what the Tories are planning by privatising it? Really?
The problem is that if anyone suggests any change of any description, they get lambasted and ultimately accused of trying to turn it into an American type healthcare system.
Ironically it was the other lot who set the NHS down the road of privatisation, but it does not need to be that way. Autonomous yes, private yes, for profit NO.
My opinion is that the NHS should be reorganised as a standalone and ring fenced entity, free of political interference. One controlling body across the country who oversee individual Trusts and all are responsible for setting their own budget requirements and working efficiently. It may mean that A&E charges are brought in and every hospital has a patient accounting department - but let those decisions be made by the NHS and not the government."
Privatising it is doing the opposite of what you think should happen though, thats why people are lambasting the concept. And Bringing in some private contractors is not the same as dividing up trusts, running down the staffing budgets and letting your mates' private trusts pick up the pieces. Privatization is the kiss of death not the way to improve it.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *gNeMan
over a year ago
Harrogate |
"Yes, for the *UK citizens and those with legitimate reasons to be here/use it*. And just because it doesn't always serve us the private standard we want (seen immediately, in a hotel type room, with the cheapest/minimum products and equipment when it actually comes to your body/treatment because the bottom line is the profit margin and if you come back, thats more money so okay too) it doesn't mean we have to give it up, and become like other countries where the wealthy are taken care of and the poor suffer because they are poor. I for one, don't want to go backwards against humanity. As for funding it better, running it down to justify privatization isn't the way to go about it, when the biggest user group are the elderly not immigrants (fact not criticism). I suggest identifying those without legitimate reasons to use it and recharging. And increasing the pool of people and companies paying taxes. "
So poor people should only be looked after if they are British..? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *gNeMan
over a year ago
Harrogate |
"Can the NHS continue to be free when the medicines they need, come from private businesses? It seems to me that big Pharmaceutical companies are holding our NHS hostage with the price of medicine. It seems they hold all the cards..
The NHS is not free it is paid for by the taxpayers.
The pharmaceutical companies pay out huge sums of money to develop new drugs and need to be recompensed in order they can develop more.
The price of the drugs to the NHS is reached by negotiation and is like other prices subject to change and market forces.
The system by and large works well, the problems occur when new drugs need to be developed to combat new diseases and when the numbers of people who would benefit from the drug is so small the costs of development outweigh the demand.
"
Recompense is hardly the right term for billions made in profit..
You say it works well, yet highlight a huge systemic flaw hmmm.
In answer to the OP, no the NHS is not sustainable under current free market capitalism. Most public services aren't. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ummersun99Woman
over a year ago
North Yorkshire by the Sea |
"Yes, for the *UK citizens and those with legitimate reasons to be here/use it*. And just because it doesn't always serve us the private standard we want (seen immediately, in a hotel type room, with the cheapest/minimum products and equipment when it actually comes to your body/treatment because the bottom line is the profit margin and if you come back, thats more money so okay too) it doesn't mean we have to give it up, and become like other countries where the wealthy are taken care of and the poor suffer because they are poor. I for one, don't want to go backwards against humanity. As for funding it better, running it down to justify privatization isn't the way to go about it, when the biggest user group are the elderly not immigrants (fact not criticism). I suggest identifying those without legitimate reasons to use it and recharging. And increasing the pool of people and companies paying taxes.
So poor people should only be looked after if they are British..? "
AND those with legitimate reasons to be here/use it... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *gNeMan
over a year ago
Harrogate |
"Yes, for the *UK citizens and those with legitimate reasons to be here/use it*. And just because it doesn't always serve us the private standard we want (seen immediately, in a hotel type room, with the cheapest/minimum products and equipment when it actually comes to your body/treatment because the bottom line is the profit margin and if you come back, thats more money so okay too) it doesn't mean we have to give it up, and become like other countries where the wealthy are taken care of and the poor suffer because they are poor. I for one, don't want to go backwards against humanity. As for funding it better, running it down to justify privatization isn't the way to go about it, when the biggest user group are the elderly not immigrants (fact not criticism). I suggest identifying those without legitimate reasons to use it and recharging. And increasing the pool of people and companies paying taxes.
So poor people should only be looked after if they are British..?
AND those with legitimate reasons to be here/use it... "
What's legitimate? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Can the NHS continue to be free when the medicines they need, come from private businesses? It seems to me that big Pharmaceutical companies are holding our NHS hostage with the price of medicine. It seems they hold all the cards.."
do you have any idea how much it costs and how many years (decades )it takes to bring a new drug to market?
when you buy your pill you are not paying for the manufacture of that pill you are paying foer the years of researchinto that line of medications, which includes the dozen plus compounds that failed to make it through testing (or even into testing).
the dead ends aren't free every failed drug is tens of millions of pounds down the drain, it has to be recouped in the cost of the successful drugs.
pharmaceutical companies aren't massive evil entities its juts not many people factor in having to pay for failures so dot understand it.
and then they only have so many years to make money off it before it becomes generic and everyone can make it for buttons.
and of course they have to make enough money from their successful products to fund the next 10 years worth of research to get their next product.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
The system by and large works well, the problems occur when new drugs need to be developed to combat new diseases and when the numbers of people who would benefit from the drug is so small the costs of development outweigh the demand.
"
this is why we have orphan drugs/desieases which are granted special permissions and benefits such as longer patents to give more time to recoup costs of a rare conditions.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *gNeMan
over a year ago
Harrogate |
"Can the NHS continue to be free when the medicines they need, come from private businesses? It seems to me that big Pharmaceutical companies are holding our NHS hostage with the price of medicine. It seems they hold all the cards..
do you have any idea how much it costs and how many years (decades )it takes to bring a new drug to market?
when you buy your pill you are not paying for the manufacture of that pill you are paying foer the years of researchinto that line of medications, which includes the dozen plus compounds that failed to make it through testing (or even into testing).
the dead ends aren't free every failed drug is tens of millions of pounds down the drain, it has to be recouped in the cost of the successful drugs.
pharmaceutical companies aren't massive evil entities its juts not many people factor in having to pay for failures so dot understand it.
and then they only have so many years to make money off it before it becomes generic and everyone can make it for buttons.
and of course they have to make enough money from their successful products to fund the next 10 years worth of research to get their next product.
"
Don't think anyone is calling them evil. Just pointing out what a broken mechanism profit driven health research is.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *gNeMan
over a year ago
Harrogate |
"
The system by and large works well, the problems occur when new drugs need to be developed to combat new diseases and when the numbers of people who would benefit from the drug is so small the costs of development outweigh the demand.
this is why we have orphan drugs/desieases which are granted special permissions and benefits such as longer patents to give more time to recoup costs of a rare conditions.
"
And what is the research budget into such 'rare conditions' in comparison with bigger money spinners..? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Can the NHS continue to be free when the medicines they need, come from private businesses? It seems to me that big Pharmaceutical companies are holding our NHS hostage with the price of medicine. It seems they hold all the cards.."
yes but it would take some kind of a revolt by the public, so with that in mind extremely unlikely. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"No but if we nationalised the drug manufacturers that would help. Nobody should be allowed to personally profit from those things essential to life - water, fuel, medicine."
no you'd find you had a rather poor nationalized group that had very mediocre employees, and you produce practically no marketable products and soon it would become a tens of billions of pounds money hole that produces nothing.
oh and you'd get sued alot by other companies and the WTO.
problem is profit = money
money = you can get better staff
better staff = breakthroughs
breakthroughs = products
products = profit. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
The system by and large works well, the problems occur when new drugs need to be developed to combat new diseases and when the numbers of people who would benefit from the drug is so small the costs of development outweigh the demand.
this is why we have orphan drugs/desieases which are granted special permissions and benefits such as longer patents to give more time to recoup costs of a rare conditions.
And what is the research budget into such 'rare conditions' in comparison with bigger money spinners..?"
you'd have to ask GSK or similar for that but i very much doubt they would divulge it.
it would also depend on if they already owned a failed compound that they thought might work on a different condition, as that could make it a worth while venture but if someone else owns it it wouldn't be bothered with. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
in regards to the NHS though,
obesity problems are a £5 billion year cost to the nhs and rising every year.
the nhs drug spending is £8-9 billion a year.
perhaps trying to educate people about proper diet and exercise would be a much more sensible course for saving the nhs money as it would reduce both of those figures.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ummersun99Woman
over a year ago
North Yorkshire by the Sea |
"Yes, for the *UK citizens and those with legitimate reasons to be here/use it*. And just because it doesn't always serve us the private standard we want (seen immediately, in a hotel type room, with the cheapest/minimum products and equipment when it actually comes to your body/treatment because the bottom line is the profit margin and if you come back, thats more money so okay too) it doesn't mean we have to give it up, and become like other countries where the wealthy are taken care of and the poor suffer because they are poor. I for one, don't want to go backwards against humanity. As for funding it better, running it down to justify privatization isn't the way to go about it, when the biggest user group are the elderly not immigrants (fact not criticism). I suggest identifying those without legitimate reasons to use it and recharging. And increasing the pool of people and companies paying taxes.
So poor people should only be looked after if they are British..?
AND those with legitimate reasons to be here/use it...
What's legitimate?"
Anyone with residental status in the UK or who is meant to have use of it. Tourists should require travel insurance to cover the costs of their treatment/ use of it, just like else where.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *gNeMan
over a year ago
Harrogate |
"Yes, for the *UK citizens and those with legitimate reasons to be here/use it*. And just because it doesn't always serve us the private standard we want (seen immediately, in a hotel type room, with the cheapest/minimum products and equipment when it actually comes to your body/treatment because the bottom line is the profit margin and if you come back, thats more money so okay too) it doesn't mean we have to give it up, and become like other countries where the wealthy are taken care of and the poor suffer because they are poor. I for one, don't want to go backwards against humanity. As for funding it better, running it down to justify privatization isn't the way to go about it, when the biggest user group are the elderly not immigrants (fact not criticism). I suggest identifying those without legitimate reasons to use it and recharging. And increasing the pool of people and companies paying taxes.
So poor people should only be looked after if they are British..?
AND those with legitimate reasons to be here/use it...
What's legitimate?
Anyone with residental status in the UK or who is meant to have use of it. Tourists should require travel insurance to cover the costs of their treatment/ use of it, just like else where.. "
Soo back to my previous point, you think that the poor should be looked after, but only if they are British or have some kind of affiliation to Britain..? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *gNeMan
over a year ago
Harrogate |
"
The system by and large works well, the problems occur when new drugs need to be developed to combat new diseases and when the numbers of people who would benefit from the drug is so small the costs of development outweigh the demand.
this is why we have orphan drugs/desieases which are granted special permissions and benefits such as longer patents to give more time to recoup costs of a rare conditions.
And what is the research budget into such 'rare conditions' in comparison with bigger money spinners..?
you'd have to ask GSK or similar for that but i very much doubt they would divulge it.
it would also depend on if they already owned a failed compound that they thought might work on a different condition, as that could make it a worth while venture but if someone else owns it it wouldn't be bothered with."
Exactly. So the system does not function optimally then. There are millions of people worldwide suffering from chronic conditions which a profit driven research model will always ignore.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
One problem with all that so called Charity is that most Charities actually pass on quite a small percentage of their Donation, quite a large chunk is taken for "Administration" as in high Salaries for senior Management.
Not much Different to the NHS or any other Business really.
Gimp
"
This is true too. And that the proportion given to charities doesn't reflect the actual need - it's all about the marketing budgets. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"No but if we nationalised the drug manufacturers that would help. Nobody should be allowed to personally profit from those things essential to life - water, fuel, medicine.
no you'd find you had a rather poor nationalized group that had very mediocre employees, and you produce practically no marketable products and soon it would become a tens of billions of pounds money hole that produces nothing.
oh and you'd get sued alot by other companies and the WTO.
problem is profit = money
money = you can get better staff
better staff = breakthroughs
breakthroughs = products
products = profit."
And it all comes tumbling down when a hospital can't afford to stock a drug. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Maybe we just have to start managing expectations and accept that everyone's granny can't live to be 100 and that some childhood cancers just can't be cured at a realistic cost."
Maybe. What's the realistic cost to keep your child alive? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Maybe we just have to start managing expectations and accept that everyone's granny can't live to be 100 and that some childhood cancers just can't be cured at a realistic cost.
Maybe. What's the realistic cost to keep your child alive?"
But the decisions made should not be personal. To keep it going as free at the point of use, there will always have to be lines drawn and limits set, even if the budget were doubled, trebled. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *gNeMan
over a year ago
Harrogate |
"Maybe we just have to start managing expectations and accept that everyone's granny can't live to be 100 and that some childhood cancers just can't be cured at a realistic cost."
Of course everyone's Granny can live to 100 given the right healthcare and genetics. There should never be a cost consideration when it comes to human life. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"Maybe we just have to start managing expectations and accept that everyone's granny can't live to be 100 and that some childhood cancers just can't be cured at a realistic cost.
Of course everyone's Granny can live to 100 given the right healthcare and genetics. There should never be a cost consideration when it comes to human life. "
There shouldn't be, but there is. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Can the NHS continue to be free when the medicines they need, come from private businesses? It seems to me that big Pharmaceutical companies are holding our NHS hostage with the price of medicine. It seems they hold all the cards.."
It depends.
If those who can afford the legal costs keep finding judges who are willing to rule that individuals have a right to prohibitively expensive drugs because they are on the market and that the NHS has to pay to correct private medicines mistakes then no. but if the NHS is allowed operate as it should without outside interference on behalf of vested interests then yes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
There's a BIG difference between telling parents that everything has been tried but their child can't be helped further, or telling them the drugs that could help their child don't fit the budget.
So long as that's the case, something's wrong.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ummersun99Woman
over a year ago
North Yorkshire by the Sea |
"Yes, for the *UK citizens and those with legitimate reasons to be here/use it*. And just because it doesn't always serve us the private standard we want (seen immediately, in a hotel type room, with the cheapest/minimum products and equipment when it actually comes to your body/treatment because the bottom line is the profit margin and if you come back, thats more money so okay too) it doesn't mean we have to give it up, and become like other countries where the wealthy are taken care of and the poor suffer because they are poor. I for one, don't want to go backwards against humanity. As for funding it better, running it down to justify privatization isn't the way to go about it, when the biggest user group are the elderly not immigrants (fact not criticism). I suggest identifying those without legitimate reasons to use it and recharging. And increasing the pool of people and companies paying taxes.
So poor people should only be looked after if they are British..?
AND those with legitimate reasons to be here/use it...
What's legitimate?
Anyone with residental status in the UK or who is meant to have use of it. Tourists should require travel insurance to cover the costs of their treatment/ use of it, just like else where..
Soo back to my previous point, you think that the poor should be looked after, but only if they are British or have some kind of affiliation to Britain..?"
Who are you referring to then? Give me an example? I don't think anyone should be refused. I simply think that tourists who are visiting and not paying taxes here should have travel insurance to recharge for any treatment. If the tourists can afford to travel abroad to the UK from outside the EU, and can afford the visas, holiday expenses, etc, its likely They can afford the travel insurance too.. ?! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago
upton wirral |
"No but if we nationalised the drug manufacturers that would help. Nobody should be allowed to personally profit from those things essential to life - water, fuel, medicine."
Many drug companies are based overseas,so do we invade all the other countries!!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"No but if we nationalised the drug manufacturers that would help. Nobody should be allowed to personally profit from those things essential to life - water, fuel, medicine.Many drug companies are based overseas,so do we invade all the other countries!!"
Did you have difficulty reading just a little further?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I see the main problem with the NHS is down to how it is run.
These medicine companies see the NHS as a cash cow - that is there to be milked.
I think that the way the NHS is run needs to change radically.
I still think that it should be free at the point of use, but I think that the government need to step away from it.
Provide the funding certainly, but allow the NHS to run as if it were a private business.
As a result, it is likely that the NHS would negotiate for more competitive prices for medicines etc. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
not read the entire thread so appologies if someone has previously raised this point..
i have a life long medical condition so the NHS give me an Exemption card which means i no longer have to pay for any prescriptions.. They'd save loadsssss of dosh if they just made it so the medication i do need is free.
Btw i think its nuts the asthma suffers have to pay for inhalers etx |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"not read the entire thread so appologies if someone has previously raised this point..
i have a life long medical condition so the NHS give me an Exemption card which means i no longer have to pay for any prescriptions.. They'd save loadsssss of dosh if they just made it so the medication i do need is free.
Btw i think its nuts the asthma suffers have to pay for inhalers etx "
i have one of those too, i guess the argument could be that we dont have to present it for every prescription.
I rarely use mine for anything but the medication it was granted for but i am lucky i guess as i rarely get ill |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"not read the entire thread so appologies if someone has previously raised this point..
i have a life long medical condition so the NHS give me an Exemption card which means i no longer have to pay for any prescriptions.. They'd save loadsssss of dosh if they just made it so the medication i do need is free.
Btw i think its nuts the asthma suffers have to pay for inhalers etx "
Effectively a tax on being ill. I have a couple of life long conditions and does annoy me the cost, particularly as it's just England.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *gNeMan
over a year ago
Harrogate |
"Yes, for the *UK citizens and those with legitimate reasons to be here/use it*. And just because it doesn't always serve us the private standard we want (seen immediately, in a hotel type room, with the cheapest/minimum products and equipment when it actually comes to your body/treatment because the bottom line is the profit margin and if you come back, thats more money so okay too) it doesn't mean we have to give it up, and become like other countries where the wealthy are taken care of and the poor suffer because they are poor. I for one, don't want to go backwards against humanity. As for funding it better, running it down to justify privatization isn't the way to go about it, when the biggest user group are the elderly not immigrants (fact not criticism). I suggest identifying those without legitimate reasons to use it and recharging. And increasing the pool of people and companies paying taxes.
So poor people should only be looked after if they are British..?
AND those with legitimate reasons to be here/use it...
What's legitimate?
Anyone with residental status in the UK or who is meant to have use of it. Tourists should require travel insurance to cover the costs of their treatment/ use of it, just like else where..
Soo back to my previous point, you think that the poor should be looked after, but only if they are British or have some kind of affiliation to Britain..?
Who are you referring to then? Give me an example? I don't think anyone should be refused. I simply think that tourists who are visiting and not paying taxes here should have travel insurance to recharge for any treatment. If the tourists can afford to travel abroad to the UK from outside the EU, and can afford the visas, holiday expenses, etc, its likely They can afford the travel insurance too.. ?! "
Asylum seekers.. Poor people living in other EU countries.. Poor people travelling over land from Africa to receive life saving treatment, those people don't have visas or travel insurance.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
The system by and large works well, the problems occur when new drugs need to be developed to combat new diseases and when the numbers of people who would benefit from the drug is so small the costs of development outweigh the demand.
this is why we have orphan drugs/desieases which are granted special permissions and benefits such as longer patents to give more time to recoup costs of a rare conditions.
And what is the research budget into such 'rare conditions' in comparison with bigger money spinners..?
you'd have to ask GSK or similar for that but i very much doubt they would divulge it.
it would also depend on if they already owned a failed compound that they thought might work on a different condition, as that could make it a worth while venture but if someone else owns it it wouldn't be bothered with.
Exactly. So the system does not function optimally then. There are millions of people worldwide suffering from chronic conditions which a profit driven research model will always ignore.. "
They wpuld be ignored by non profit driven research too.
Limited money means you would always research the biggest conditions first.
Why would anyone in non profit work research rare conditions? They'd be very hard pressed to persuade anyone to give them money. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I see the main problem with the NHS is down to how it is run.
These medicine companies see the NHS as a cash cow - that is there to be milked.
I think that the way the NHS is run needs to change radically.
I still think that it should be free at the point of use, but I think that the government need to step away from it.
Provide the funding certainly, but allow the NHS to run as if it were a private business.
As a result, it is likely that the NHS would negotiate for more competitive prices for medicines etc."
I feel it important to point out here that the nhs gets the lowest prices in Europe for brand name drugs...
Having one giant single customer for the country rather than lots of separate health providers gives the nhs massive clout with suppliers.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *gNeMan
over a year ago
Harrogate |
"
The system by and large works well, the problems occur when new drugs need to be developed to combat new diseases and when the numbers of people who would benefit from the drug is so small the costs of development outweigh the demand.
this is why we have orphan drugs/desieases which are granted special permissions and benefits such as longer patents to give more time to recoup costs of a rare conditions.
And what is the research budget into such 'rare conditions' in comparison with bigger money spinners..?
you'd have to ask GSK or similar for that but i very much doubt they would divulge it.
it would also depend on if they already owned a failed compound that they thought might work on a different condition, as that could make it a worth while venture but if someone else owns it it wouldn't be bothered with.
Exactly. So the system does not function optimally then. There are millions of people worldwide suffering from chronic conditions which a profit driven research model will always ignore..
They wpuld be ignored by non profit driven research too.
Limited money means you would always research the biggest conditions first.
Why would anyone in non profit work research rare conditions? They'd be very hard pressed to persuade anyone to give them money."
Money should not be a factor at all. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
The system by and large works well, the problems occur when new drugs need to be developed to combat new diseases and when the numbers of people who would benefit from the drug is so small the costs of development outweigh the demand.
this is why we have orphan drugs/desieases which are granted special permissions and benefits such as longer patents to give more time to recoup costs of a rare conditions.
And what is the research budget into such 'rare conditions' in comparison with bigger money spinners..?
you'd have to ask GSK or similar for that but i very much doubt they would divulge it.
it would also depend on if they already owned a failed compound that they thought might work on a different condition, as that could make it a worth while venture but if someone else owns it it wouldn't be bothered with.
Exactly. So the system does not function optimally then. There are millions of people worldwide suffering from chronic conditions which a profit driven research model will always ignore..
They wpuld be ignored by non profit driven research too.
Limited money means you would always research the biggest conditions first.
Why would anyone in non profit work research rare conditions? They'd be very hard pressed to persuade anyone to give them money.
Money should not be a factor at all."
But it is because you can't expect people to work for free.
Or multi million pound prices of analytical equipment to be given away for free.
Or for insurance to be free for drug trials
Your solution is basically "magic will fix it" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Having one giant single customer for the country rather than lots of separate health providers gives the nhs massive clout with suppliers.
"
You don't get more clout than the NHS in terms of pharmaceutical procurement. Why people would assume the NHS doesn't get the lowest price it can I don't know.
For most pharmaceutical companies there would be a minimum floor price. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *gNeMan
over a year ago
Harrogate |
"
The system by and large works well, the problems occur when new drugs need to be developed to combat new diseases and when the numbers of people who would benefit from the drug is so small the costs of development outweigh the demand.
this is why we have orphan drugs/desieases which are granted special permissions and benefits such as longer patents to give more time to recoup costs of a rare conditions.
And what is the research budget into such 'rare conditions' in comparison with bigger money spinners..?
you'd have to ask GSK or similar for that but i very much doubt they would divulge it.
it would also depend on if they already owned a failed compound that they thought might work on a different condition, as that could make it a worth while venture but if someone else owns it it wouldn't be bothered with.
Exactly. So the system does not function optimally then. There are millions of people worldwide suffering from chronic conditions which a profit driven research model will always ignore..
They wpuld be ignored by non profit driven research too.
Limited money means you would always research the biggest conditions first.
Why would anyone in non profit work research rare conditions? They'd be very hard pressed to persuade anyone to give them money.
Money should not be a factor at all.
But it is because you can't expect people to work for free.
Or multi million pound prices of analytical equipment to be given away for free.
Or for insurance to be free for drug trials
Your solution is basically "magic will fix it""
No my solution is to seek a genuine alternative to capitalism, it's there we just haven't found it yet.
Fact is the power of capital is holding back almost every aspect of our society. Medicines are not researched which could be, equipment is not used in hospitals which should be. Transport is purposefully hobbled.
People burying there heads in the sand and adopting an I'm alright chuck mindset are slowing the process. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
Take a step back in time and follow the alternative path that was championed by many in 1960's and 1970's. It was called communism and it failed spectacularly. The equality and shares virtues that you seek can never happen because it is not on human nature to be that way. We are programmed genetically to be competitive and there will always be another person, another company, another country ready to move in and capitalise on weakness.
Just because you want what you say to be correct and truthful does not mean that it is. The advances in medical research have been astounding in the last 20-30 years and private funding has been behind the research and development. Only this week a potential malaria vaccine was discovered and the cost to get it to market was in the hundreds of millions. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *gNeMan
over a year ago
Harrogate |
"Take a step back in time and follow the alternative path that was championed by many in 1960's and 1970's. It was called communism and it failed spectacularly. The equality and shares virtues that you seek can never happen because it is not on human nature to be that way. We are programmed genetically to be competitive and there will always be another person, another company, another country ready to move in and capitalise on weakness.
Just because you want what you say to be correct and truthful does not mean that it is. The advances in medical research have been astounding in the last 20-30 years and private funding has been behind the research and development. Only this week a potential malaria vaccine was discovered and the cost to get it to market was in the hundreds of millions."
Take a look further back in time, feudalism. That worked, why didn't we just stick with that..?
You say we are competitive by nature, can you be so sure it is not nurture?
Medical research in the last 20-30 years has been astounding, but think about what could have been achieved without capital constraints. Money doesn't solve problems, human ingenuity does. Money simply acts as a facilitator or as a hindrance, and that need not be the case.
Capitalism has got us where we are today, there is no denying that, but there was always a shelf life. That shelf life is fast approaching, one need only look out the window to see it..
To suggest an economic/political system which requires 75% of the worlds population to live in abject poverty as being the pinnacle of Human capability is so so incredibly naive. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
The system by and large works well, the problems occur when new drugs need to be developed to combat new diseases and when the numbers of people who would benefit from the drug is so small the costs of development outweigh the demand.
this is why we have orphan drugs/desieases which are granted special permissions and benefits such as longer patents to give more time to recoup costs of a rare conditions.
And what is the research budget into such 'rare conditions' in comparison with bigger money spinners..?
you'd have to ask GSK or similar for that but i very much doubt they would divulge it.
it would also depend on if they already owned a failed compound that they thought might work on a different condition, as that could make it a worth while venture but if someone else owns it it wouldn't be bothered with.
Exactly. So the system does not function optimally then. There are millions of people worldwide suffering from chronic conditions which a profit driven research model will always ignore..
They wpuld be ignored by non profit driven research too.
Limited money means you would always research the biggest conditions first.
Why would anyone in non profit work research rare conditions? They'd be very hard pressed to persuade anyone to give them money.
Money should not be a factor at all.
But it is because you can't expect people to work for free.
Or multi million pound prices of analytical equipment to be given away for free.
Or for insurance to be free for drug trials
Your solution is basically "magic will fix it"
No my solution is to seek a genuine alternative to capitalism, it's there we just haven't found it yet.
Fact is the power of capital is holding back almost every aspect of our society. Medicines are not researched which could be, equipment is not used in hospitals which should be. Transport is purposefully hobbled.
People burying there heads in the sand and adopting an I'm alright chuck mindset are slowing the process. "
No capitalism is driving us forward faster than any other system as everyone is rushing to be first to find something.
If you got rid of capitalism you still wouldn't have rare conditions being researched because you'd still have a limited number of researchers and you wouldn't want to be wasting thier time on rare conditions when they could be working on more common ones.
Dunno what you mean by transport is hobbled capitalism drove forward two modifications to one our products resulting in an over 15 % increase in fuel efficiency.
Extending range or just cutting costs and emissions.
Without capitalism no one would bother with that kind of development as there isn't a driving factor |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Take a step back in time and follow the alternative path that was championed by many in 1960's and 1970's. It was called communism and it failed spectacularly. The equality and shares virtues that you seek can never happen because it is not on human nature to be that way. We are programmed genetically to be competitive and there will always be another person, another company, another country ready to move in and capitalise on weakness.
Just because you want what you say to be correct and truthful does not mean that it is. The advances in medical research have been astounding in the last 20-30 years and private funding has been behind the research and development. Only this week a potential malaria vaccine was discovered and the cost to get it to market was in the hundreds of millions.
Take a look further back in time, feudalism. That worked, why didn't we just stick with that..?
You say we are competitive by nature, can you be so sure it is not nurture?
Medical research in the last 20-30 years has been astounding, but think about what could have been achieved without capital constraints. Money doesn't solve problems, human ingenuity does. Money simply acts as a facilitator or as a hindrance, and that need not be the case.
Capitalism has got us where we are today, there is no denying that, but there was always a shelf life. That shelf life is fast approaching, one need only look out the window to see it..
To suggest an economic/political system which requires 75% of the worlds population to live in abject poverty as being the pinnacle of Human capability is so so incredibly naive. "
No it's more naive to think you can raise up the other 75% to match. You either need to remove them or drag down the 25% who over consume.
You won't get any medical advances because the funding and resources will have to be used producing food and basic amenities for that 75%.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Somebody finally spotted a market for Malaria. If I get ill I hope it's an illness with an attractive enough market to motivate a cure."
There's been treatments for malaria for decades my dad had malaria when I was a child.
Problem is you can only attack the parasite when it's not hiding dormant within your cells but when it's in your blood stream waiting for a mosquito to bite.
A vaccine is promising because it allows your body to respond when there's only a hand full of parasites rather than millions and before they reach the liver and potentially seal themselves away dormant for years.
One thing that will be very interesting though is if we do a world wide vaccination program and wipe malaria out how long it will take for sickle cell to drop out of the African population or if it will stay |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *gNeMan
over a year ago
Harrogate |
"
The system by and large works well, the problems occur when new drugs need to be developed to combat new diseases and when the numbers of people who would benefit from the drug is so small the costs of development outweigh the demand.
this is why we have orphan drugs/desieases which are granted special permissions and benefits such as longer patents to give more time to recoup costs of a rare conditions.
And what is the research budget into such 'rare conditions' in comparison with bigger money spinners..?
you'd have to ask GSK or similar for that but i very much doubt they would divulge it.
it would also depend on if they already owned a failed compound that they thought might work on a different condition, as that could make it a worth while venture but if someone else owns it it wouldn't be bothered with.
Exactly. So the system does not function optimally then. There are millions of people worldwide suffering from chronic conditions which a profit driven research model will always ignore..
They wpuld be ignored by non profit driven research too.
Limited money means you would always research the biggest conditions first.
Why would anyone in non profit work research rare conditions? They'd be very hard pressed to persuade anyone to give them money.
Money should not be a factor at all.
But it is because you can't expect people to work for free.
Or multi million pound prices of analytical equipment to be given away for free.
Or for insurance to be free for drug trials
Your solution is basically "magic will fix it"
No my solution is to seek a genuine alternative to capitalism, it's there we just haven't found it yet.
Fact is the power of capital is holding back almost every aspect of our society. Medicines are not researched which could be, equipment is not used in hospitals which should be. Transport is purposefully hobbled.
People burying there heads in the sand and adopting an I'm alright chuck mindset are slowing the process.
No capitalism is driving us forward faster than any other system as everyone is rushing to be first to find something.
If you got rid of capitalism you still wouldn't have rare conditions being researched because you'd still have a limited number of researchers and you wouldn't want to be wasting thier time on rare conditions when they could be working on more common ones.
Dunno what you mean by transport is hobbled capitalism drove forward two modifications to one our products resulting in an over 15 % increase in fuel efficiency.
Extending range or just cutting costs and emissions.
Without capitalism no one would bother with that kind of development as there isn't a driving factor"
That is just ideological rhetoric though. You can't possibly say that our rate of advancement is linked purely to free market capitalism, as we have nothing to compare.
And driving factor? It is a very modern idea that humans would just sit on their hands all day if we didn't have shiny money as a motivator. Fact is necessity is the mother of invention, and always has been. Not money.
Transport is a simple one. We have sustainable efficient technologies available which are not being used because they are unprofitable, and the oil companies own most of the patents. Look at the bullet train in Japan, that technology is over 30 years old. Using modern equivalences we could build train that run cleanly and quietly, yet travel faster than planes!
If you take away the restrains of capital, and unleash the human race to its full potential, technological advancement will skyrocket! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The answer is No we can't. Some hard reality choices need to be made and ultimately not every case can the NHS pay for it. Personally I find cosmetic surgery and fertility treatment should be private and not paid by the Nhs but hey I know some people will disagree. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Yes we can clearly stop the people who come to this country with one objective in mind
and that will make the NHS sustainable?"
Yes it will 1 in nine in renal are from UK only
Now do the math
35 beruocrats to run one bed
That's just the tip of it all and only one department |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Yes we can clearly stop the people who come to this country with one objective in mind
and that will make the NHS sustainable?
Yes it will 1 in nine in renal are from UK only
Now do the math
35 beruocrats to run one bed
That's just the tip of it all and only one department "
I don't need to do the math to understand you're wildly incorrect.
I do agree it's part of a few things that should be done to save costs, but it's far from the solution. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Never had a free NHS, free the point of use. Look at the alternatives, private is much more expensive to administer.
Doctors were against the formation of the NHS at first but now realise the benefit of having if you like an endless supply of guinea pigs to practice their science, that also go for the pharmaceutical companies, they really need to be reminded of this. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"..........
That is just ideological rhetoric though. You can't possibly say that our rate of advancement is linked purely to free market capitalism, as we have nothing to compare.
And driving factor? It is a very modern idea that humans would just sit on their hands all day if we didn't have shiny money as a motivator. Fact is necessity is the mother of invention, and always has been. Not money.
Transport is a simple one. We have sustainable efficient technologies available which are not being used because they are unprofitable, and the oil companies own most of the patents. Look at the bullet train in Japan, that technology is over 30 years old. Using modern equivalences we could build train that run cleanly and quietly, yet travel faster than planes!
If you take away the restrains of capital, and unleash the human race to its full potential, technological advancement will skyrocket!"
Fantasy. As I said previously. You want what you think and say to be true - but it isn't.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
The system by and large works well, the problems occur when new drugs need to be developed to combat new diseases and when the numbers of people who would benefit from the drug is so small the costs of development outweigh the demand.
this is why we have orphan drugs/desieases which are granted special permissions and benefits such as longer patents to give more time to recoup costs of a rare conditions.
And what is the research budget into such 'rare conditions' in comparison with bigger money spinners..?
you'd have to ask GSK or similar for that but i very much doubt they would divulge it.
it would also depend on if they already owned a failed compound that they thought might work on a different condition, as that could make it a worth while venture but if someone else owns it it wouldn't be bothered with.
Exactly. So the system does not function optimally then. There are millions of people worldwide suffering from chronic conditions which a profit driven research model will always ignore..
They wpuld be ignored by non profit driven research too.
Limited money means you would always research the biggest conditions first.
Why would anyone in non profit work research rare conditions? They'd be very hard pressed to persuade anyone to give them money.
Money should not be a factor at all.
But it is because you can't expect people to work for free.
Or multi million pound prices of analytical equipment to be given away for free.
Or for insurance to be free for drug trials
Your solution is basically "magic will fix it"
No my solution is to seek a genuine alternative to capitalism, it's there we just haven't found it yet.
Fact is the power of capital is holding back almost every aspect of our society. Medicines are not researched which could be, equipment is not used in hospitals which should be. Transport is purposefully hobbled.
People burying there heads in the sand and adopting an I'm alright chuck mindset are slowing the process.
No capitalism is driving us forward faster than any other system as everyone is rushing to be first to find something.
If you got rid of capitalism you still wouldn't have rare conditions being researched because you'd still have a limited number of researchers and you wouldn't want to be wasting thier time on rare conditions when they could be working on more common ones.
Dunno what you mean by transport is hobbled capitalism drove forward two modifications to one our products resulting in an over 15 % increase in fuel efficiency.
Extending range or just cutting costs and emissions.
Without capitalism no one would bother with that kind of development as there isn't a driving factor
That is just ideological rhetoric though. You can't possibly say that our rate of advancement is linked purely to free market capitalism, as we have nothing to compare.
And driving factor? It is a very modern idea that humans would just sit on their hands all day if we didn't have shiny money as a motivator. Fact is necessity is the mother of invention, and always has been. Not money.
Transport is a simple one. We have sustainable efficient technologies available which are not being used because they are unprofitable, and the oil companies own most of the patents. Look at the bullet train in Japan, that technology is over 30 years old. Using modern equivalences we could build train that run cleanly and quietly, yet travel faster than planes!
If you take away the restrains of capital, and unleash the human race to its full potential, technological advancement will skyrocket!"
You really need to brush up on your physics the average air liner speed at ground level would be above mach. You ain't doing that with a train for the noise issue alone.
Secondly unless it's a train in a vacum tunnel you ain't getting that speed either and the thing would need perfectly straight tracks or it would rip itself off the rails in a corner.
And the only engine with the power to weight for that is the turbine engine off a plane.
There is not magical technology held back by oil companies oil companies are the biggest investors in green energy tech because they are energy companies fundamentally.
Removing capitol wouldn't make advancement skyrocket as there wouldn't be any motivating factor. Who's going to gather these intelligent people put them in an office provide them with goals and equipment if they arnt getting anything for it.
Once again your just an idealist without a basic understanding of the engineering or scientific problems your claiming to solve. And instead blaming an unrelated money issue. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *gNeMan
over a year ago
Harrogate |
"
The system by and large works well, the problems occur when new drugs need to be developed to combat new diseases and when the numbers of people who would benefit from the drug is so small the costs of development outweigh the demand.
this is why we have orphan drugs/desieases which are granted special permissions and benefits such as longer patents to give more time to recoup costs of a rare conditions.
And what is the research budget into such 'rare conditions' in comparison with bigger money spinners..?
you'd have to ask GSK or similar for that but i very much doubt they would divulge it.
it would also depend on if they already owned a failed compound that they thought might work on a different condition, as that could make it a worth while venture but if someone else owns it it wouldn't be bothered with.
Exactly. So the system does not function optimally then. There are millions of people worldwide suffering from chronic conditions which a profit driven research model will always ignore..
They wpuld be ignored by non profit driven research too.
Limited money means you would always research the biggest conditions first.
Why would anyone in non profit work research rare conditions? They'd be very hard pressed to persuade anyone to give them money.
Money should not be a factor at all.
But it is because you can't expect people to work for free.
Or multi million pound prices of analytical equipment to be given away for free.
Or for insurance to be free for drug trials
Your solution is basically "magic will fix it"
No my solution is to seek a genuine alternative to capitalism, it's there we just haven't found it yet.
Fact is the power of capital is holding back almost every aspect of our society. Medicines are not researched which could be, equipment is not used in hospitals which should be. Transport is purposefully hobbled.
People burying there heads in the sand and adopting an I'm alright chuck mindset are slowing the process.
No capitalism is driving us forward faster than any other system as everyone is rushing to be first to find something.
If you got rid of capitalism you still wouldn't have rare conditions being researched because you'd still have a limited number of researchers and you wouldn't want to be wasting thier time on rare conditions when they could be working on more common ones.
Dunno what you mean by transport is hobbled capitalism drove forward two modifications to one our products resulting in an over 15 % increase in fuel efficiency.
Extending range or just cutting costs and emissions.
Without capitalism no one would bother with that kind of development as there isn't a driving factor
That is just ideological rhetoric though. You can't possibly say that our rate of advancement is linked purely to free market capitalism, as we have nothing to compare.
And driving factor? It is a very modern idea that humans would just sit on their hands all day if we didn't have shiny money as a motivator. Fact is necessity is the mother of invention, and always has been. Not money.
Transport is a simple one. We have sustainable efficient technologies available which are not being used because they are unprofitable, and the oil companies own most of the patents. Look at the bullet train in Japan, that technology is over 30 years old. Using modern equivalences we could build train that run cleanly and quietly, yet travel faster than planes!
If you take away the restrains of capital, and unleash the human race to its full potential, technological advancement will skyrocket!
You really need to brush up on your physics the average air liner speed at ground level would be above mach. You ain't doing that with a train for the noise issue alone.
Secondly unless it's a train in a vacum tunnel you ain't getting that speed either and the thing would need perfectly straight tracks or it would rip itself off the rails in a corner.
And the only engine with the power to weight for that is the turbine engine off a plane.
There is not magical technology held back by oil companies oil companies are the biggest investors in green energy tech because they are energy companies fundamentally.
Removing capitol wouldn't make advancement skyrocket as there wouldn't be any motivating factor. Who's going to gather these intelligent people put them in an office provide them with goals and equipment if they arnt getting anything for it.
Once again your just an idealist without a basic understanding of the engineering or scientific problems your claiming to solve. And instead blaming an unrelated money issue. "
See you are trying to make me look stupid, but in actuality just showing you're ignorance.
Look up mag lev technology. There is already a train in China which uses this (no fantasy, I've been on it  ). It can reach speeds of over 300 mph. The average cruising of a passenger airliner at ground level is 5-600 mph. This is nearly 20 year old technology. Models have been built which can theoretically travel at speeds of 1800 mph.
This is not magic or fantasy, it is fact. One could theoretically travel from New York to Beijing in 2 hours. Buuut guess who holds most of the patents/intellectual property/rights to commercial distribution? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *gNeMan
over a year ago
Harrogate |
"
Once again your just an idealist without a basic understanding of the engineering or scientific problems your claiming to solve. And instead blaming an unrelated money issue. "
Im not an idealist or a fantasist or even a conspiracist. I don't think the big bad oil companies are out to get us. I just know that their sole motivators are growth and profits, and the introduction of sustainable technologies does not align with those motives. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *gNeMan
over a year ago
Harrogate |
"..........
That is just ideological rhetoric though. You can't possibly say that our rate of advancement is linked purely to free market capitalism, as we have nothing to compare.
And driving factor? It is a very modern idea that humans would just sit on their hands all day if we didn't have shiny money as a motivator. Fact is necessity is the mother of invention, and always has been. Not money.
Transport is a simple one. We have sustainable efficient technologies available which are not being used because they are unprofitable, and the oil companies own most of the patents. Look at the bullet train in Japan, that technology is over 30 years old. Using modern equivalences we could build train that run cleanly and quietly, yet travel faster than planes!
If you take away the restrains of capital, and unleash the human race to its full potential, technological advancement will skyrocket!
Fantasy. As I said previously. You want what you think and say to be true - but it isn't.
"
Your just a conservative. In your politics and your ideology.
I am ideologically your opposite; progressive. I respect your _iew even though on the whole I disagree with it, so please don't patronise me and disrespect mine. Hey if I'm right then we're all gunna live in a sexually liberated utopia haha, what's not to like..? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"..........
That is just ideological rhetoric though. You can't possibly say that our rate of advancement is linked purely to free market capitalism, as we have nothing to compare.
And driving factor? It is a very modern idea that humans would just sit on their hands all day if we didn't have shiny money as a motivator. Fact is necessity is the mother of invention, and always has been. Not money.
Transport is a simple one. We have sustainable efficient technologies available which are not being used because they are unprofitable, and the oil companies own most of the patents. Look at the bullet train in Japan, that technology is over 30 years old. Using modern equivalences we could build train that run cleanly and quietly, yet travel faster than planes!
If you take away the restrains of capital, and unleash the human race to its full potential, technological advancement will skyrocket!
Fantasy. As I said previously. You want what you think and say to be true - but it isn't.
Your just a conservative. In your politics and your ideology.
I am ideologically your opposite; progressive. I respect your _iew even though on the whole I disagree with it, so please don't patronise me and disrespect mine. Hey if I'm right then we're all gunna live in a sexually liberated utopia haha, what's not to like..?"
My politics and ideology are irrelevant. I am just telling you that from life experience your fantasy would not work because you remove the motivating factors that human beings need to do and to achieve.
You are trying to re-programme human nature. Do you know why there are millions of sperm and not just the one that is needed? It is because human nature, just like the animal world generally is competitive and that is just the way it is. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *gNeMan
over a year ago
Harrogate |
"..........
My politics and ideology are irrelevant. I am just telling you that from life experience your fantasy would not work because you remove the motivating factors that human beings need to do and to achieve.
You are trying to re-programme human nature. Do you know why there are millions of sperm and not just the one that is needed? It is because human nature, just like the animal world generally is competitive and that is just the way it is."
What you say isn't fact though! It's ideological rhetoric! Even the scientist can't agree on the whole nature vs. nurture thing, so we're hardly gunna solve it over the Internet.
How's this for a story though. In a study, Monkeys have been noted to only display competitive tendancy's when in resource limited environments. Purposely limiting resources is a key capitalist mechanic, used to drive up value.
You cannot base all of your presumptions on anecdotal evidence. Of course in your life experience people are competitive, they have been taught to from the moment they are born. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
In a word, yes, but only if we accept significantly higher taxes to cope with the ageing and growing population that will mean the NHS costs more and more. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Once again your just an idealist without a basic understanding of the engineering or scientific problems your claiming to solve. And instead blaming an unrelated money issue.
Im not an idealist or a fantasist or even a conspiracist. I don't think the big bad oil companies are out to get us. I just know that their sole motivators are growth and profits, and the introduction of sustainable technologies does not align with those motives. "
Errr yes it does.
One you havnt said what this magic engine they're hiding is.
Secondly pil companies wpuld love a energy source that we s unlimited and free means their profits would be sky high no risking millions on oil exploration no price fluctuations, no risk of losing an asset like the horizon rig.
A sustainabke source of energy would be a massive money spinner for them that's why they're pumping more money than anyone into finding it so they can get it first.
They arnt idiots they k ow oil is limited they want something to replace it when it starts running out as they don't want to go out of business
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
The system by and large works well, the problems occur when new drugs need to be developed to combat new diseases and when the numbers of people who would benefit from the drug is so small the costs of development outweigh the demand.
this is why we have orphan drugs/desieases which are granted special permissions and benefits such as longer patents to give more time to recoup costs of a rare conditions.
And what is the research budget into such 'rare conditions' in comparison with bigger money spinners..?
you'd have to ask GSK or similar for that but i very much doubt they would divulge it.
it would also depend on if they already owned a failed compound that they thought might work on a different condition, as that could make it a worth while venture but if someone else owns it it wouldn't be bothered with.
Exactly. So the system does not function optimally then. There are millions of people worldwide suffering from chronic conditions which a profit driven research model will always ignore..
They wpuld be ignored by non profit driven research too.
Limited money means you would always research the biggest conditions first.
Why would anyone in non profit work research rare conditions? They'd be very hard pressed to persuade anyone to give them money.
Money should not be a factor at all.
But it is because you can't expect people to work for free.
Or multi million pound prices of analytical equipment to be given away for free.
Or for insurance to be free for drug trials
Your solution is basically "magic will fix it"
No my solution is to seek a genuine alternative to capitalism, it's there we just haven't found it yet.
Fact is the power of capital is holding back almost every aspect of our society. Medicines are not researched which could be, equipment is not used in hospitals which should be. Transport is purposefully hobbled.
People burying there heads in the sand and adopting an I'm alright chuck mindset are slowing the process.
No capitalism is driving us forward faster than any other system as everyone is rushing to be first to find something.
If you got rid of capitalism you still wouldn't have rare conditions being researched because you'd still have a limited number of researchers and you wouldn't want to be wasting thier time on rare conditions when they could be working on more common ones.
Dunno what you mean by transport is hobbled capitalism drove forward two modifications to one our products resulting in an over 15 % increase in fuel efficiency.
Extending range or just cutting costs and emissions.
Without capitalism no one would bother with that kind of development as there isn't a driving factor
That is just ideological rhetoric though. You can't possibly say that our rate of advancement is linked purely to free market capitalism, as we have nothing to compare.
And driving factor? It is a very modern idea that humans would just sit on their hands all day if we didn't have shiny money as a motivator. Fact is necessity is the mother of invention, and always has been. Not money.
Transport is a simple one. We have sustainable efficient technologies available which are not being used because they are unprofitable, and the oil companies own most of the patents. Look at the bullet train in Japan, that technology is over 30 years old. Using modern equivalences we could build train that run cleanly and quietly, yet travel faster than planes!
If you take away the restrains of capital, and unleash the human race to its full potential, technological advancement will skyrocket!
You really need to brush up on your physics the average air liner speed at ground level would be above mach. You ain't doing that with a train for the noise issue alone.
Secondly unless it's a train in a vacum tunnel you ain't getting that speed either and the thing would need perfectly straight tracks or it would rip itself off the rails in a corner.
And the only engine with the power to weight for that is the turbine engine off a plane.
There is not magical technology held back by oil companies oil companies are the biggest investors in green energy tech because they are energy companies fundamentally.
Removing capitol wouldn't make advancement skyrocket as there wouldn't be any motivating factor. Who's going to gather these intelligent people put them in an office provide them with goals and equipment if they arnt getting anything for it.
Once again your just an idealist without a basic understanding of the engineering or scientific problems your claiming to solve. And instead blaming an unrelated money issue.
See you are trying to make me look stupid, but in actuality just showing you're ignorance.
Look up mag lev technology. There is already a train in China which uses this (no fantasy, I've been on it ). It can reach speeds of over 300 mph. The average cruising of a passenger airliner at ground level is 5-600 mph. This is nearly 20 year old technology. Models have been built which can theoretically travel at speeds of 1800 mph.
This is not magic or fantasy, it is fact. One could theoretically travel from New York to Beijing in 2 hours. Buuut guess who holds most of the patents/intellectual property/rights to commercial distribution? "
Two words.
Sonic boom
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *gNeMan
over a year ago
Harrogate |
"
Once again your just an idealist without a basic understanding of the engineering or scientific problems your claiming to solve. And instead blaming an unrelated money issue.
Im not an idealist or a fantasist or even a conspiracist. I don't think the big bad oil companies are out to get us. I just know that their sole motivators are growth and profits, and the introduction of sustainable technologies does not align with those motives.
Errr yes it does.
One you havnt said what this magic engine they're hiding is.
Secondly pil companies wpuld love a energy source that we s unlimited and free means their profits would be sky high no risking millions on oil exploration no price fluctuations, no risk of losing an asset like the horizon rig.
A sustainabke source of energy would be a massive money spinner for them that's why they're pumping more money than anyone into finding it so they can get it first.
They arnt idiots they k ow oil is limited they want something to replace it when it starts running out as they don't want to go out of business
"
You clearly don't have a clue, and havn't even bothered to research in the direction I have pointed you. There is no engine!
You obviously have a science based job (not physics though I would warrant) and think you know the lot.
Do you even know what sustainable energy is? Everyone buys a ground source heat pump and a couple of solar panels.. No need for the energy companies. Why would they possibly want that? Your argument doesn't actually make any sense, think about it, and stop having such a closed mind! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Once again your just an idealist without a basic understanding of the engineering or scientific problems your claiming to solve. And instead blaming an unrelated money issue.
Im not an idealist or a fantasist or even a conspiracist. I don't think the big bad oil companies are out to get us. I just know that their sole motivators are growth and profits, and the introduction of sustainable technologies does not align with those motives.
Errr yes it does.
One you havnt said what this magic engine they're hiding is.
Secondly pil companies wpuld love a energy source that we s unlimited and free means their profits would be sky high no risking millions on oil exploration no price fluctuations, no risk of losing an asset like the horizon rig.
A sustainabke source of energy would be a massive money spinner for them that's why they're pumping more money than anyone into finding it so they can get it first.
They arnt idiots they k ow oil is limited they want something to replace it when it starts running out as they don't want to go out of business
You clearly don't have a clue, and havn't even bothered to research in the direction I have pointed you. There is no engine!
You obviously have a science based job (not physics though I would warrant) and think you know the lot.
Do you even know what sustainable energy is? Everyone buys a ground source heat pump and a couple of solar panels.. No need for the energy companies. Why would they possibly want that? Your argument doesn't actually make any sense, think about it, and stop having such a closed mind!"
There is an engine lol
Maglev works on high powered electro magnets and ideal super conductor's however that requires liquid nitrogen or liquid helium although we are getting warmer with the more complex ceramic super conductors especially now we're starting to engineer the macro structure of the material rather than just the chemical structure (there was some very interesting research going on in that area when I was doing my materials science degree) but nano engineering is still very new.
But what do you think makes thw power for these high energy devices?
Hint it's fossil fuels.
Again no that's not what sustainable energy is one small scale production is largely less efficient that large scale production (that's why we don't all have a petrol generator in out hosue)
And you think a few solar panels are going to provide the megga watts of power a day say an aluminium smelter needs? Or any industry?
You pointed to a train that would be impossible to run due to it having massive sonic boom issues.
Followed by not understanding that those technology demonstrator trains run on perfectly straight tracks.
Can you imagine the G forces involved in a 600 mph turn with a radius of anything less than miles?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I don't have a science based job I have en engineering based job hence why I look at the practical side of things rather than the idealistic side of things.
What your getting your information from is what boils down to entertainment sources they're interesting but programs and sites and magazines that publish this stuff sex it up lots and big up the pros but don't point out the cons.
Have a read of a few academic papers (get an Athens log in from a student friend) relating to these projects and you'll see the actual level of them.
And all the flaws and issues still to be worked out.
No one's holding these things back in fact there's lots of people racing against each other to bring them to market but there's big issues with running liner motors hundreds of miles long with multiple vehicles on each.
cost of installation as well is mind boggling as well as incompatability with the existing infrastructure (ie you can't just rip a section of standard rail out and replace it with Maglev tracks without crippling the rest of the rail network and you can't build a separate route as it would require demolishing massive paths through cities.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *gNeMan
over a year ago
Harrogate |
Just open your mind my friend. You can argue on the technical details all day. Why can we not build perfectly straight tracks? Why can we not build these trains in a vacuum? I have an Athens log in, link me some articles.
This kind of infrastructure cannot spring up over-night, but the point is that we have the technology there. The maglev technology used in China is decades old. Why has nothing new been built if as you say people are racing to get these new technologies to the markets?
Sonic boom? These trains don't have to break the sound barrier in order to travel at faster speeds than airliners. Do some research yourself into sustainable energy sources. With the right combination of wind, solar, tidal, and wave based technologies we could easily provide energy to the planet. Again not something which can just spring up overnight, but the first step is admitting it's possible.
The one thing which you have said that I can agree with, is that creating the infrastructure is prohibitively expensive. As is researching medicines for rare health conditions, or chronic conditions.
Your obviously a clever guy who has worked hard and is now totally indoctrinated by your own beliefs. I can't blame you, most people are like that.
Let me say this. The kind of free market capitalism of which you seem a disciple, was actually considered fringe extremism up until Thatcher/Reagan.
You genuinely think that a system which limits technological advancement due to the restraints of an arbitrary resource (money), and relies on most of the world to live in abject poverty is the best way of operating? You think that in the next thousand years we will still be living like we are today? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"No but if we nationalised the drug manufacturers that would help. Nobody should be allowed to personally profit from those things essential to life - water, fuel, medicine."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *gNeMan
over a year ago
Harrogate |
"
Can you imagine the G forces involved in a 600 mph turn with a radius of anything less than miles?
"
Why does the radius have to be less than miles??? Also the train rises and is perpendicular to the ground at the point of the turn, so that any g force generated is actually helping to stick the train to the tracks.
This train exists. We have superior technology now. It's clean. Why are we not utilising this technology? You haven't provided an answer to any of that, just further theoretical jargon in order to support your stance. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
