Don't profit off people's "not-wellbeing."

[zephyr9]

A short clip of a corporate creep justifying his company raising the price of a drug 5,000%, followed by an interview with Jean Ross of National Nurses United, who speaks in support of Bernie Sanders for president for his one-payer health care plan. I like what the guy's about.

Price Gouging In Health Care Is The Rule, Not the Exception

A bit about the plan:

Calculating the Cost of Bernie Sanders' Single-Payer Health Program

I like it from the little bit I've seen. THoughts?

[NurseEmmy]

Of course non-profits make profits. I'm saying that inopposed profit motivation is a major cause of high prices for low quality service. Applies to both sectors. And I'd happily take a cut in pay as long as it applies across the board: CEOs, corporate managers, advertising budgets, overpriced drug and biomedical/dme products and their sales executives, shareholders in healthcare corporations ... the list of leeches on the public teat is a long one. At least nurses put in a fair day's work for 8 or 12 hours' pay.

And the veiled threat to my livelihood does nothing to clinch your argument. Indeed, it proves my point about who's social good is served by for-profit healthcare providers in our current economy.

Nor does it change the dismal record of the private sector to keep its promises of improved service, efficiency and costs.

Nope, it's a failed experiment. I've accepted that and am moving on.

I cannot like this enough!

[CryssyD]

MrNurse:

There is an interesting program, I think it was on FreeSpeechTV, maybe on LinkTV; one of those left-wing networks. It was called "Fire in the Blood," which was such a fascinating title that it inspired me to watch it, having no idea what it was about. Turns out it was about how the developing countries in Africa ravaged by HIV might not have become so ravaged had they been able to get AZT. Remember back in the '80s, how long and how vehemently the gay population had to demonstrate, agitate, and lobby to get the price of AZT brought down to something that regular people could afford? Well, the poor benighted souls of Africa simply didn't have any luck with that--although Doctors Without Borders and other aid groups tried mightily to get reasonable pricing on the drug, so that African AIDS sufferers could get desperately needed treatment, the US government refused to allow it. There were political reasons for that--I'll let the movie explain it; but it has much to do with the fact that R&D has little, if anything, to do with inflated prices--simple greed has everything to do with it. The corporate masters had no interest in helping the poor souls in Africa, and the government couldn't force them without letting loose the secret of how little production of the medication actually cost and the government's role in it. So, as a result, the AIDS epidemic ran loose in Africa for many years, devastating the population, causing untold misery and suffering--because of the g&%dam#ed profit motive. I would love to believe it's just bleeding-heart liberal propaganda, but it's just too believable--so I believe every word.

So I don't want to hear about R&D costs footed by the government or the pharmaceutical companies as an excuse for sky-high prices of drugs; it's just opportunistic price-gouging, nothing more, nothing less. The developing nations of the world need help, but our going single-payer would have nothing to do with it. Please leave these people out of your equation--it's not relevant. The government does little to help them, private agencies and NGOs are their main source of support and assistance; single-payer here at home is a completely separate issue.