A friend of mine started a nonprofit, Groundwork Opportunities, to fund income-generating projects in the developing world including projects exactly like this one.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

There are 34 different pharmaceutical companies in the United States currently. There are 34Not one of them pulls down less than 1.6 billion dollars a year. The average revenue of the bottom ten pharmaceutical companies is 2.4 billion. The top ten make at least 10 billion a year in revenue with Johnson and Johnson pulling down a whopping 70 billion in revenue.


My point exactly. They're making a killing because there's such little competition in the marketplace. 34 doesn't seem like a small number to you? There are more mechanics in your hometown most likely.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

Assuming your figure is correct, even the smallest of the pharmaceutical companies in the US would have access to producing something like the polio vaccine if the current cost to bring drug to market is in fact $802 million.


You're missing the point. Let's remember what this blog was about: what I'm assuming is more than 34 companies or schools have researched the AIDS protein for over three decade and they weren't able to do what the unlimited gamers online did in three weeks. That's opening the market. I know accepting that causes some unsettling cognitive dissonance, but there it is all pink and naked.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

I still don't understand why you think a smaller pharmaceutical company would shy away from production/distribution of a drug if it was all already paid for through a nonprofit like the March of Dimes.


Because instead of spending $800 million for one drug, they could spend $800 million for who knows how many drugs. Ten. Fifty. Maybe hundreds. Thousands? $800 million is a lot of money.

Especially when it's "cost of doing business" the large pharmaceutical companies probably wrote into the law when their lobbyists got the legislators to pass it. I'd much rather pay $800 million as a rich corporation so only the rich investors can compete with me. That ensures less competition. And the less competition, the higher the profits for an inferior product. As one of the 34 I'd prefer that to compete with hundreds of companies.

And private charities won't cover it all. You need investors. And if you're an investor with minimal capital who can't afford the risk of the $800 million price tag, you'll probably not invest. What do you have against competition? Don't you agree that more competition would be better? Isn't that what we've seen with the gamers?

Hmmm, perhaps I misinterpreted you when you used the word "still" in that sentence. I thought you were suggesting something else; that was my mistake. Regardless, this ingenuity was made possible by state institutions and not surprisingly didn't come from the University of Phoenix or similar for-profit schools.

I never said that the state university fully funded his research (you must read, grasshopper), I said it was discovered at a state university. Surely the university loaned him a hand here and there.

There are 34 different pharmaceutical companies in the United States currently. Not one of them pulls down less than 1.6 billion dollars a year. The average revenue of the bottom ten pharmaceutical companies is 2.4 billion. The top ten make at least 10 billion a year in revenue with Johnson and Johnson pulling down a whopping 70 billion in revenue.

Assuming your figure is correct, even the smallest of the pharmaceutical companies in the US would have access to producing something like the polio vaccine if the current cost to bring drug to market is in fact $802 million. ESPECIALLY when you factor in that all of the research and development costs will be privately funded by charitable donations like the March of Dimes, as in your polio example, the costs would be minimal. I still don't understand why you think a smaller pharmaceutical company would shy away from production/distribution of a drug if it was all already paid for through a nonprofit like the March of Dimes.

Oh shit did I just blow up your whole argument? Boom motherfucker.

I'm asking people to sit down, and decide together to set up some fair and equal structure for identifying and clarifying our responsibilities to one another, and create an incentive structure to help us make sure we are all living up to the commitments morality demands of us.

Perfect! Sounds like you've formed a solid mission statement for a nongovernmental nonprofit.


I don't really see much promotion of altruism in that.

Funny: I see responsibilities mandated by the government as infinitely less altruistic than responsibilities mandated by individual moral imperative.


Oh, and one that I missed from earlier: It's not that I misunderstand Paul's "message," it's that I see through the spin.

Classifying Ron Paul as some kind of spin doctor is comical to me. We're talking about someone who has contributed more in the way of treating the underprivileged and uninsured than most of us ever will. Idealistic and inflexible with respect to individual liberty? Maybe. Disingenuous? Try again.
>> ^NetRunner:
Not at all. I'm asking people to sit down, and decide together to set up some fair and equal structure for identifying and clarifying our responsibilities to one another, and create an incentive structure to help us make sure we are all living up to the commitments morality demands of us ...

Tags for this video have been changed from 'liberalmediapresents, google, nonprofits, discounts, exclusion' to 'liberalviewer, google, nonprofits, discounts, exclusion, fox and friends' - edited by xxovercastxx

a few weeks ago, I watched the film, "God Grew Tired of Us." At the screening, I met one of the "lost boys" featured in this video who was also in attendance. His name is John Dau. He's now 32 (I think), an American citizen, and has started a nonprofit, the John Dau Foundation, which brings healthcare and human services to Southern Sudan.

Just by coincidence, the screening was being held just five days after the South Sudan became an independent state and a member of the United Nations. It was amazing to talk to him about his experience and how inspiring it is to witness his accomplishments.

"The online payment provider PayPal has frozen the account of Courage to Resist, which in collaboration with the Bradley Manning Support Network is currently raising funds in support of US Army Pfc. Bradley Manning. 'We've been in discussions with PayPal for weeks, and by their own admission there's no legal obligation for them to close down our account,' noted Loraine Reitman of the Bradley Manning Support Network (Support Network). 'This was an internal policy decision by PayPal. ... They said they would not unrestrict our account unless we authorized PayPal to withdraw funds from our organization's checking account by default. While there may be no legal obligation to provide services, there is an ethical obligation. By shutting out legitimate nonprofit activity, PayPal shows itself to be morally bankrupt.'"

http://www.couragetoresist.org/x/content/view/891/1

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I'd love to turn VideoSift into a nonprofit. I had some chats with @Krupo a while back about this a while back - unfortunately inertia got the better of me.

In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
Not to interrupt your shit slinging w throbbin but I wasn't at home when u posted the state of the sift sifttalk post. Anyway I wondered if having a nonprofit status was an option at all. I don't know exactly what the implications would be legally but as far as I know, to become a nonprofit you have to provide a social, educational, religious, or cultural service for no charge.

You would still be able to sell ad space and I've heard of schools selling ads on like tests. We'd be able to take advantage of all kinds of non for profit perks like goodsearch.com and skip out on taxes etc. Just a thought that deserves some consideration IMHO.

Not to interrupt your shit slinging w throbbin but I wasn't at home when u posted the state of the sift sifttalk post. Anyway I wondered if having a nonprofit status was an option at all. I don't know exactly what the implications would be legally but as far as I know, to become a nonprofit you have to provide a social, educational, religious, or cultural service for no charge.

You would still be able to sell ad space and I've heard of schools selling ads on like tests. We'd be able to take advantage of all kinds of non for profit perks like goodsearch.com and skip out on taxes etc. Just a thought that deserves some consideration IMHO.

@qualm, not anymore. The new trend is for nonprofits to pay competitive salaries. And why shouldn't they? Just because you're doing something you believe in doesn't mean you have to be a martyr for the cause as well.

@Arkaium, why shouldn't they make a profit? At least they're doing something, which is better than what I'm doing about it. I say it's wonderful to do well from doing good. Most people who work for nonprofits do so for a salary.

I hope this is a paid ad placement, and not just a self-promotion. At least that way, the Sift would see some profit out of it.

I dunno if it's even theoretically possible to fit more pop-psychology buzzwords in this ad.

I had a whole slew of criticisms, but they're not really valid for such a short commercial. I suspect my dislike of the commercial is driven primarily by the new-age/marketing-droid feeling it left in my mouth. Well, that and the fact that I've seen -very- few successes come out of these for-profit treatment centers. Not many from the nonprofit side either, for that matter...it's almost like addicts can't be cured until they're ready, and once they're ready, any program works.

Someday, perhaps we'll understand brain chemistry well enough to actually fix it. But that day isn't today.

>> ^eric3579:


You forgot one!

United States

GDP spent on health care: 16.0%

Average monthly family premium: $1,100, with some employers paying a portion

Co-payments: Varies, can be as low as $10 co-pay with other costs covered at 100% for HMO in-network, or with HDHP you pay out of pocket until the deductible is met, with deductibles falling somewhere in the $4,000-$12,000 range. You are also given the option to not get sick, or to save up lots of money just in case you do.

What is it? If you're 65 and older, single-payer. If you're a veteran, it's socialized medicine. If you work for an employer with benefits, it's whatever they've decided to offer. If you don't get employer insurance, and you're healthy you may be able to buy overpriced individual insurance, with no guarantee that the contract will be honored. If you're seriously ill, you will be paying out of pocket. It's the Ayn Randian ideal of economic eugenics, minus the bit where people can escape it if they survive to 65, or join the military.

How does it work? Poorly. We spend the largest portion of our GDP for healthcare, but our basic health statistics (e.g. life expectancy, infant mortality, etc.) are nearly 3rd-world. There are certain procedures that the US does better than other countries, such as organ transplants and boob jobs, but our overall ability to deliver care is no better than other countries that spend much less. The US does not have anywhere near universal coverage, with over 15% of our population without insurance of any kind, and many of those who do face denied claims or rescinded policies if they become seriously ill. On the bright side, the profits in the US health industry are second to none.

What are the concerns? All trends point to the situation only getting worse. Costs continue to grow faster than in any other nation. Due to a lack of a national guarantee of universal coverage, this leads to a steady increase in the number of uninsured. Insurance policies themselves are becoming more and more limiting, with denials of coverage becoming a regular occurrence, while premiums continue to rise apace.

What about reform? We're thinking about setting up something less intrusive than Switzerland, and they're calling our President a Nazi. Aside from that, it's going swell. We will probably end up with a system that's a bit of a hybrid of the Swiss and German systems -- no government mandated pricing (aside from Medicare), but we are likely to end up with nonprofit, privately run sickness funds (co-ops), as well as a nonprofit, government run sickness fund (teh public option). However, as it stands, only the unemployed and people working for small businesses will be allowed to purchase plans either through the co-ops or public option (and only then if their small business chooses not to provide a group plan). Most will receive coverage from mandated employer coverage, which includes a minimum requirement for the quality of the employer provided plan. People will still be permitted to forgo insurance altogether, but they will need to pay a penalty/excise tax for doing so.

There's almost certainly too little in the plan to control costs, but it should improve the quality of life for millions, and help bump up our OECD stats to the level of our economic peers.

Eventually the people who own our country will realize that upwards of 20% GDP on healthcare isn't worth it, and will inflict cost controls on us one way or another. You can choose the free-market eugenic path of "if you can't afford it, hurry up and die" or you choose the path where we try to come up with some fair, medically-based rules for how we provide care to cut costs (aka *scary voice* SOCIALISM!!!).

United Kingdom

(GDP) spent on health care: 8.3

Average family premium: None; funded by taxation.

Co-payments: None for most services; some co-pays for dental care, eyeglasses and 5 percent of prescriptions. Young people and the elderly are exempt from all drug co-pays.

What is it? The British system is "socialized medicine" because the government both provides and pays for health care. Britons pay taxes for health care, and the government-run National Health Service (NHS) distributes those funds to health care providers. Hospital doctors are paid salaries. General practitioners (GPs), who run private practices, are paid based on the number of patients they see. A small number of specialists work outside the NHS and see private-pay patients.

How does it work? Because the system is funded through taxes, administrative costs are low; there are no bills to collect or claims to review. Patients have a "medical home" in their GP, who also serves as a gatekeeper to the rest of the system; patients must see their GP before going to a specialist. GPs, who are paid extra for keeping their patients healthy, are instrumental in preventive care, an area in which Britain is a world leader.

What are the concerns? The stereotype of socialized medicine -- long waits and limited choice -- still has some truth. In response, the British government has instituted reforms to help make care more competitive and give patients more choice. Hospitals now compete for NHS funds distributed by local Primary Care Trusts, and starting in April 2008 patients are able to choose where they want to be treated for many procedures.

Japan

GDP spent on health care: 8

Average family premium: $280 per month, with employers paying more than half.

Co-payments: 30 percent of the cost of a procedure, but the total amount paid in a month is capped according to income.

What is it? Japan uses a "social insurance" system in which all citizens are required to have health insurance, either through their work or purchased from a nonprofit, community-based plan. Those who can't afford the premiums receive public assistance. Most health insurance is private; doctors and almost all hospitals are in the private sector.

How does it work? Japan boasts some of the best health statistics in the world, no doubt due in part to the Japanese diet and lifestyle. Unlike the U.K., there are no gatekeepers; the Japanese can go to any specialist when and as often as they like. Every two years the Ministry of Health negotiates with physicians to set the price for every procedure. This helps keeps costs down.

What are the concerns? In fact, Japan has been so successful at keeping costs down that Japan now spends too little on health care; half of the hospitals in Japan are operating in the red. Having no gatekeepers means there's no check on how often the Japanese use health care, and patients may lack a medical home.

Germany

GDP spent on health care: 10.7

Average family premium: $750 per month; premiums are pegged to patients' income.

Co-payments: 10 euros ($15) every three months; some patients, like pregnant women, are exempt.

What is it? Germany, like Japan, uses a social insurance model. In fact, Germany is the birthplace of social insurance, which dates back to Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. But unlike the Japanese, who get insurance from work or are assigned to a community fund, Germans are free to buy their insurance from one of more than 200 private, nonprofit "sickness funds." As in Japan, the poor receive public assistance to pay their premiums.

How does it work? Sickness funds are nonprofit and cannot deny coverage based on preexisting conditions; they compete with each other for members, and fund managers are paid based on the size of their enrollments. Like Japan, Germany is a single-payment system, but instead of the government negotiating the prices, the sickness funds bargain with doctors as a group. Germans can go straight to a specialist without first seeing a gatekeeper doctor, but they may pay a higher co-pay if they do.

What are the concerns? The single-payment system leaves some German doctors feeling underpaid. A family doctor in Germany makes about two-thirds as much as he or she would in America. (Then again, German doctors pay much less for malpractice insurance, and many attend medical school for free.) Germany also lets the richest 10 percent opt out of the sickness funds in favor of U.S.-style for-profit insurance. These patients are generally seen more quickly by doctors, because the for-profit insurers pay doctors more than the sickness funds.

Taiwan

GDP spent on health care: 6.3

Average family premium: $650 per year for a family for four.

Co-payments: 20 percent of the cost of drugs, up to $6.50; up to $7 for outpatient care; $1.80 for dental and traditional Chinese medicine. There are exemptions for major diseases, childbirth, preventive services, and for the poor, veterans, and children.

What is it? Taiwan adopted a "National Health Insurance" model in 1995 after studying other countries' systems. Like Japan and Germany, all citizens must have insurance, but there is only one, government-run insurer. Working people pay premiums split with their employers; others pay flat rates with government help; and some groups, like the poor and veterans, are fully subsidized. The resulting system is similar to Canada's -- and the U.S. Medicare program.

How does it work? Taiwan's new health system extended insurance to the 40 percent of the population that lacked it while actually decreasing the growth of health care spending. The Taiwanese can see any doctor without a referral. Every citizen has a smart card, which is used to store his or her medical history and bill the national insurer. The system also helps public health officials monitor standards and effect policy changes nationwide. Thanks to this use of technology and the country's single insurer, Taiwan's health care system has the lowest administrative costs in the world.

What are the concerns? Like Japan, Taiwan's system is not taking in enough money to cover the medical care it provides. The problem is compounded by politics, because it is up to Taiwan's parliament to approve an increase in insurance premiums, which it has only done once since the program was enacted.

Switzerland

GDP spent on health care: 11.6

Average monthly family premium: $750, paid entirely by consumers; there are government subsidies for low-income citizens.

Co-payments: 10 percent of the cost of services, up to $420 per year.

What is it? The Swiss system is social insurance like in Japan and Germany, voted in by a national referendum in 1994. Switzerland didn't have far to go to achieve universal coverage; 95 percent of the population already had voluntary insurance when the law was passed. All citizens are required to have coverage; those not covered were automatically assigned to a company. The government provides assistance to those who can't afford the premiums.

How does it work? The Swiss example shows that universal coverage is possible, even in a highly capitalist nation with powerful insurance and pharmaceutical industries. Insurance companies are not allowed to make a profit on basic care and are prohibited from cherry-picking only young and healthy applicants. They can make money on supplemental insurance, however. As in Germany, the insurers negotiate with providers to set standard prices for services, but drug prices are set by the government.

What are the concerns? The Swiss system is the second most expensive in the world -- but it's still far cheaper than U.S. health care. Drug prices are still slightly higher than in other European nations, and even then the discounts may be subsidized by the more expensive U.S. market, where some Swiss drug companies make one-third of their profits. In general, the Swiss do not have gatekeeper doctors, although some insurance plans require them or give a discount to consumers who use them.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

The government provided the funding for the research at universities, etc. The government continues to provide a lot of money for research. Your premise is that private individuals and companies would have funded the research. The money "would have appeared." IBM and a few companies did form a nonprofit company for research. It would seem to support your theory; unfortunately, this nonprofit was formed at the request of the government. Have you just recently read Atlas Shrugged and read up on Ayn Rand? Your idea that the money would just show up reminds me of Ayn Rand's "field of dreams"-like theory that there should be should not be any government-sponsored charity, that private investors would fill that void. (Before any admirers of Ayn Rand jump me, great people can be wrong about some things. Just look at Einstein's life. And if you disagree, well, we'll just disagree.) I disagree that the money would have shown up in significant quantities for internet of your hypothesis to be as mature as the internet of today.

Legislation for the backbone? What a complete strawman argument. Sigh... Where did I ever say that legislation or policing of the internet was needed? I didn't. I said that the government provided the funding and direction. It was the government that told telco that if they want funding, they need to hook up lines to the major hubs that the government established. Again, you argue that private investors and organizations would have done this. I strongly doubt that seeing that they all got their money for research and physically laying of the lines and equipment from the government.

The military has had many more advancements than just the nuclear bomb. How can you dismiss the military's intelligence advancements by just saying that private companies could have done it? The simple fact is that private businesses use older military advances because the military got there first. You are ignoring the reality of the situation. It's like saying, "if only other organizations had sat still on their research, private companies would have been able to do the research eventually (once they found the money...)"

You want to argue your point while ignoring how things work in the real world. I am saying that without government funding and direction, we would not the internet we have today or one of relative equivalency.