|
Xae posted:The analysis is reductionist at best. Fine dude then provide something better. Cite please, etc. Like I said -- that was just what I found in 30 seconds on google. And yes, Medicare and Medicaid cap some costs but not all costs. For example, they can't negotiate on prescription drug pricing.
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 10:11 |
|
|
Didn't really know what to expect either way, so I decided to take a crack at it without reference to other nations: In 2014, about 1.243 million taxable returns exceeded 500k in AGI less deficits, accounting for about 0.8% of returns filed, and about 1.925 trillion in AGI. Of that, they paid about 525 billion in taxes. The 5 mil or so in the 200-500k range made about 1.417 trillion and paid 276 billion in taxes. (source) Assuming the same effective tax rate of the 200-500k bracket on the first 500k of income of those 1.243 million households, that's 121 billion in taxes on that 622 billion in income. A 90% tax on income exceeding that would pull down 1.173 trillion, giving us 770 billion in new tax revenues. In 2014, the US spent 2.563 trillion on personal healthcare, 875 billion being private insurance and another 330 billion being out of pocket. (source) So at a (very) rough approximation, a 90% tax rate on incomes above 500k would leave us 435 billion that would have to come from somewhere else, if we were to change nothing other than who cuts the check and assume no other effects. That assumption is, to put it mildly, unreasonable, so it looks like this turns on what we believe about secondary effects of adopting single payer and that tax paying for it. I find it plausible given those numbers that we can pay for all this healthcare by eating the rich, particularly if we allow our definition of 'rich' to include the 200-500k bracket, corporations, etc., start accounting for program specifics, administrative savings, or look at the restructuring of deductions that would likely accompany such a massive change to the tax code. edit: I think the AGI vs actual pre-tax cash income is doing a lot of work there, those income numbers seem low. eviltastic fucked around with this message at 00:46 on Apr 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Fine dude then provide something better. Cite please, etc. Like I said -- that was just what I found in 30 seconds on google. There really hasn't been a good analysis done in a long time. The last time the CBO scored a single payer style bill was over 20 years ago. I would really like to see them score one again, but I doubt either party in DC wants to see the results.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
OK, I was right with that edit. When talking about income, and not AGI, the numbers differ sharply. Per the Tax Policy Center, in 2015 earners above 500k took in 2.815 trillion. They paid, effective across all federal taxes (n.b., this includes imputed corporate income tax liability), 910 billion. (source). Per the same CMS spreadsheet I linked earlier, in 2015, 945 billion was spent via private health insurance on personal health care. Out of pocket costs were 338 billion. 1.9 trillion in untaxed income, 1.3 trillion in expenditures to cover. The money's there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
Xae posted:The drug adjustment assumes companies just accept huge cuts, which they won't. They'll globally jack up prices to compensate. Yeah they can't do this. The prices are set by the governments in those countries, and the drug companies aren't going to "go Galt" and refuse to sell their drugs in Europe and Canada.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 06:01
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah they can't do this. The prices are set by the governments in those countries, and the drug companies aren't going to "go Galt" and refuse to sell their drugs in Europe and Canada. Countries have control over the price that consumers pay at retail, but the countries can't force drug companies to sell drugs at whatever price the state wants. If the company doesn't want to sell at that price they can always leave the market. For generics it wouldn't be an issue, but for patented drugs it would be a big deal if a drug company pulls out and would look really lovely for the government when people can't get the drugs they need. The countries could always try to pull an India and just ignore some of the patents, but that is a can of worms on its own. Xae fucked around with this message at 13:47 on Apr 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 13:44
|
|
|
Xae posted:Countries have control over the price that consumers pay at retail, but the countries can't force drug companies to sell drugs at whatever price the state wants. They can and they do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:They can and they do. I don't remember the details too well right now, but a fairly major example of this would be antiretroviral drugs used to treat AIDS. They used to be sold at an incredibly high price by the patent-holders, but governments of countries like South Africa or Brazil managed to use their leverage to push the prices down by an order of magnitude or more by threatening to seize patents or otherwise fostering the development of generics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
Xae posted:Countries have control over the price that consumers pay at retail, but the countries can't force drug companies to sell drugs at whatever price the state wants. Those countries are sovereign, they can just license local manufacturers' to make the drugs if the drug companies won't play ball. If the drug companies could get the Netherlands to pay more just by insisting on it really hard like you seem to think, they'd be doing it now. What is this Republican horseshit you're peddling, "you can't, like, regulate corporations maaaaan" *ignores, literally, an entire planetload of other countries successfully doing exactly that*
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:I don't remember the details too well right now, but a fairly major example of this would be antiretroviral drugs used to treat AIDS. They used to be sold at an incredibly high price by the patent-holders, but governments of countries like South Africa or Brazil managed to use their leverage to push the prices down by an order of magnitude or more by threatening to seize patents or otherwise fostering the development of generics. South Africa, Brazil and India are about the only countries that pull that stunt on a regular basis. But it is usually just that, a stunt. They reach a deal with the drugs owner eventually, they just use it to negotiate better prices. VitalSigns posted:Those countries are sovereign, they can just license local manufacturers' to make the drugs if the drug companies won't play ball. If the drug companies could get the Netherlands to pay more just by insisting on it really hard like you seem to think, they'd be doing it now. They may be sovereign but they also signed IP treaties and ignoring patent protection on drugs trigger retaliation. Some countries manage it because they don't have much IP to retaliate on. Even then the locally licensed factories end up getting licensed by the IP owner after negotiation. It is a game they pull, they license (or at least threaten to) some factories then go back to negotiating. They try and reach a deal before the IP owner's host country retaliates. If they the largest market in the world is suddenly much less profitable they will seek profit elsewhere. Right now the US is the primary market, whatever they get in other countries is just gravy. Remember that the marginal cost on drugs is incredibly tiny. If their R&D costs are covered, say by the largest drug market in the world, then they can accept very low prices because their cost per pill is pennies if they don't count R&D. Their cost per pill is virtually zero if they license production. If you change how large a market the US is the companies will respond. Do you really think drug companies are just going to go "Aw shucks, I guess I will just accept making less money and I will not alter our prices at all in an attempt to recover the lost revenue."? This isn't "Republican Horseshit"  . This is reality. As soon as their existing contracts are up they'll start demanding more money and threaten to pull their drugs from countries.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
Do you have any examples of drug companies pulling out of a market in the face of price controls?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:Do you have any examples of drug companies pulling out of a market in the face of price controls? Do you have any examples of a developed country ignoring patents on drugs and licensing local factories? It is a negotiation. They go back and forth and come to an agreement on price. Very rarely do negotiations completely break down to the point where one party pulls out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
This question is a bit off current topic, but I don't have a good sense for how people view the economics of healthcare. What 'should' be the goal of healthcare in society?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
Xae posted:It is a negotiation. They go back and forth and come to an agreement on price. Very rarely do negotiations completely break down to the point where one party pulls out. Yes, exactly. Most single payer countries are able to pay much less for drugs than the US because the larger the purchaser the larger the leverage in negotiations. They're also able (or more willing) to impose price controls and regulations.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
Funding cuts to the program that was providing a ~12k/yr towards my mom's cancer drugs just got cut. After her insurance, she's on the hook for ~22k/yr now just for the one scrip.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:Yes, exactly. Most single payer countries are able to pay much less for drugs than the US because the larger the purchaser the larger the leverage in negotiations. They're also able (or more willing) to impose price controls and regulations. Yep, and outside the first world there would be a huge health crisis and probable riots in high pop, poor countries like Brazil and India if they didn't do that. The USA's willingness to let its citizens get screwed over to this extent due to the cult of the free market or whatever the gently caress is nuts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 03:56
|
|
|
Kekekela posted:Funding cuts to the program that was providing a ~12k/yr towards my mom's cancer drugs just got cut. After her insurance, she's on the hook for ~22k/yr now just for the one scrip. Are prescriptions not covered in out of pocket maximums?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 13:27
|
|
|
Kekekela posted:Funding cuts to the program that was providing a ~12k/yr towards my mom's cancer drugs just got cut. After her insurance, she's on the hook for ~22k/yr now just for the one scrip. actual cuts or proposed? A lot of the proposed cuts in Trump's budget aren't facts yet, just proposals. Still time for public pressure on some things.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 13:52
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:actual cuts or proposed? I haven't gotten full details on what happened at the high level, but she got an actual letter saying her grant was being discontinued. Kekekela fucked around with this message at 03:10 on Apr 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 14:10
|
|
|
Kekekela posted:I haven't gotten full details on what happened at the high level, but she got an actual letter saying her grant was being discontinued. If her plan covers prescriptions then those costs go towards the deductible and out of pocket max. Once you reach the out of pocket max all services and bennies are covered 100% including prescriptions. Ofc this can be a very high amount depending on the plan (I think mine is around 8k per year for instance).
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
Kekekela posted:Funding cuts to the program that was providing a ~12k/yr towards my mom's cancer drugs just got cut. After her insurance, she's on the hook for ~22k/yr now just for the one scrip. That doesn't seem right. Rx's are part of your deductible and maximum out of pocket expenses, and with a family plan your maximum yearly out of pocket expenses can't exceed $14,300 (small comfort I know). Is it an outpatient or inpatient administered medication? Is she on medicare, medicaid, or a commercial insurance? Odds are really good that there is a Indigent Drug Program available from the manufacturer of this drug. The drug companies are assholes, but they're also generally aware that people not on Medicaid/Medicare can't afford their products, so usually their IDPs are pretty generous with income requirements. Also look into if there is a federally qualified community health center in your area. At my FQHC we have a technician whose primary job function is to sign people up for IDP medications, and if they don't qualify we can still usually get them the medication for free due to 340b pricing depending on what their income level is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
Xae posted:Republican Horseshit Drug companies are not going to pull out of Europe. They know it, Europe knows it, I know it, you know it. Europeans aren't going to side with the companies trying to extort them over their own governments. Patents are only worth something if a government uses its power to protect it; governments have drug companies over a barrel. Drug corporations are not charity outfits that chivalrously give Germany and the UK a break on prices out of the goodness of their widdle hearts because they already get "enough" money from America. There is no such thing as "enough" money to a corporation: they are legal entities that exist solely to enrich their owners. If they could bully European countries into paying American prices for drugs they would already be doing it. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 01:56 on Apr 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Tankie Masturbatory Fantasies I can edit quote boxes too. It would be illegal in almost every European country to ignore patents from other countries, particularly if it was all in the EU. Get that stupid idea out of your head. They don't have to pull out of "Europe". They can pull single drugs from single markets. They can delay the sale of new drugs. And you know what? This already happens. Did you know that for some countries cap the price based on the drug's profit so that a decline in profit elsewhere will almost automatically increase prices in other countries? Probably not, but that doesn't matter, but because Vital Signs needs to show that he is REAL MAD about stuff and has the Correct Opinions. Lets review what started this tangent: Xae posted:The drug adjustment assumes companies just accept huge cuts, which they won't. They'll globally jack up prices to compensate. That is it. And it is completely true. The companies would immediately shift their focus from the US and try and get as much money from as many countries as possible. Right now they don't have do. They can focus a disproportionate amount of resources on the US Market because it is disproportionately profitable. If it becomes less profitable they'll shift to trying to get more money from other countries. Drug companies don't have infinite resources, so they focus on the most profitable markets. This entire tangent has been just a chance for you virtue signal. We get it already. You're not making any points, you're just indulging your own masturbatory fantasy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
Drug companies don't have "more resources" to shift from the US to get more money from other countries. The amount of resources they spend in the US is small compared to the profit they make here because Republicans already worship industry and it's relatively inexpensive to buy a few Democrats to sink proposals for drug reimportation and collective bargaining in Medicare. Shifting the lobbying money they pay to Cory Booker is not going to buy them a European market where the populace isn't full of Randians like you endlessly proclaiming that drug companies will go Galt on us if we don't give them enough money and make them feel good. Countries can dictate whatever prices they want and the companies have to take it. They know that and that's why they're terrified of Medicare negotiating drug prices: they know they can't just go ask Germany for more free money if they stop getting it from us, dupes like you are the only ones who think this. And no they can't pull out of a single country, no European country is going to happily agree to pay twice what their neighbors are paying. Also "virtue signaling".  Maybe I'm a beta cuck too.
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:10 on Apr 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 02:03
|
|
|
Even if the US government negotiating much better drug prices causes drug prices to increase in other countries, my basic response is a shrug. Not to sound Trumpian, but if the prices for drug X increases by 10% in the UK, Australia, and Japan in exchange for the US not being gouged...well, that's their problem, not mine. They need to negotiate and sort that out for themselves. It's the same way I feel when people start talking about rich people coming down from Canada to get healthcare in the US. As an American, why should I care about the welfare and wait times rich Canadians over that of poor Americans? If it's that loving bad for rich Canadians, they need to work that out with the Canadian government. It's not an US issue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
Even a 10% increase on other developed countries would make a public option or single-payer easily affordable in the US if we were suddenly paying Canada+10% for drugs too. Xae's argument only works if you assume drug companies are demigods who will jack up everyone's prices to right-now-America levels if we dare use collective bargaining, ugh now the whole world is paying 10 times more for drugs and the companies are richer than ever <  > thanks Obama!
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:If her plan covers prescriptions then those costs go towards the deductible and out of pocket max. Once you reach the out of pocket max all services and bennies are covered 100% including prescriptions. Ofc this can be a very high amount depending on the plan (I think mine is around 8k per year for instance). Subvisual Haze posted:That doesn't seem right. Rx's are part of your deductible and maximum out of pocket expenses, and with a family plan your maximum yearly out of pocket expenses can't exceed $14,300 (small comfort I know). Sorry, was wrong about out of pocket maxes, basing it on hazy recollection of selling commercial health plans twenty five years ago. She's on an employer plan, from the family business which employees ~100 people, these are post stem cell treatment outpatient drugs so I'm not sure exactly how it works, but from what I can tell you can still be balance billed above your oop max and I'm guessing if I researched I could find some other loopholes. Its not really something I pry for details on, she just offered that one up out of frustration. She's also well connected with the AG's office in her state though so I'm not worried about her being done over illegally.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 03:25
|
|
|
blackmet posted:Even if the US government negotiating much better drug prices causes drug prices to increase in other countries, my basic response is a shrug. Yeah. I mean the discussion started about the estimated cost savings based on a joke of an analysis of a single payer proposal. I'm not saying it is bad or good. Just that assuming that the US would get the same prices as other countries by switching to single payer was underestimating the cost. It was like one of a half dozen problems I pointed out in the analysis. But instead the discussion went on a tangent because... I don't even know any more. VitalSigns posted:Even a 10% increase on other developed countries would make a public option or single-payer easily affordable in the US if we were suddenly paying Canada+10% for drugs too. I said "They'll globally jack up prices to compensate. ". If the US negotiated drug prices en mass the price would end up being somewhere between the current values from Single Payer countries and what the US is now. This meant that the cost estimate was low. That is what I was discussing. The cost estimate for the drugs. But you didn't bother to read that and just wanted to scream about the evils of drug companies and about how single payer would solve everything. You simply saw an opportunity to expose the virtues of FULL COMMUNISM NOW then started flinging poo poo when you got pushback. And now you're just lying.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 03:53
|
|
|
How low do you think the cost estimates are. Are you proposing the difference is some nonzero but ultimately achievable amount like 10%. Or are you asserting that the drug companies and medical providers will "jack up" the global prices so high that no one will be able to afford public healthcare without Americans subsidizing them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:How low do you think the cost estimates are. Are you proposing the difference is some nonzero but ultimately achievable amount like 10%. The comment was about the analysis underestimating the cost. That is all. Lets say right now is $100 in the US and $20 in Europe. If the US goes single payer the US isn't going to get the pill for $20. The price in the US will go down, the price in Europe will go up. But I don't think that the price in the US is going down to $20. It will end up somewhere between $100 and $21 dollars. And Europe's price will probably end up somewhere between $21 and $100 dollars as well. I have no idea what the exact* impact would be, but I can guarantee you that the US wouldn't just get the same price that the "Europe" gets. The analysis was based on the US getting the same price as I think it was the Netherlands. Xae fucked around with this message at 04:09 on Apr 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 04:06
|
|
|
I'm willing to believe that there's some amount of slop there and European governments would accept some degree of price increases rather than go through the hassle and risk of threatening patents, but not so much slop that it's worth the risk and PR hit for drug companies to go maximum-hardball to get it. Sure. But if the pills are $25 versus $20 then that doesn't change the calculation that much: the United States could still easily afford a public option. It doesn't seem reasonable that the drug companies are leaving huge amounts of money on the table, and they could get $80 for that pill from Germany if they really wanted but they don't out of laziness/charity/whatever. It would be absurd for them to just relinquish profits on that scale. If you're arguing the former then fine I agree, but it's irrelevant to whether the US could afford UHC with taxes on the rich: it could. If you're arguing the latter then you're going to need to back up the claim that drug companies could just quadruple drug prices in Europe whenever they want.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 04:25
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I'm willing to believe that there's some amount of slop there and European governments would accept some degree of price increases rather than go through the hassle and risk of threatening patents, but not so much slop that it's worth the risk and PR hit for drug companies to go maximum-hardball to get it. Sure. But if the pills are $25 versus $20 then that doesn't change the calculation that much: the United States could still easily afford a public option. The discussion was never about affordability. It was about why someone's back of a napkin math shouldn't be taken as gospel. That is all. Drug prices are complicated. Many single payer countries have complex systems and formulas that have huge influence on the price. All of these systems assumes the US market effectively subsidizes their portion of R&D (and everything else ) costs. If that changes drug companies will want the systems changed. And they do decline to sell drugs at discount prices when they don't like the price. There are some drugs which are not covered by single payer systems and end up more expensive in those countries than in the US. http://time.com/money/4130688/prescription-drug-prices-america/ quote:The Wall Street Journal compared prices for 40 top branded drugs in Norway, England, and Ontario, Canada with the prices for the same drugs covered by Medicare Part B in the U.S., for which prices are made public. Prices in the U.S. were higher than prices in Norway for 93% of the drugs surveyed. Prices were higher in the U.S. than in England for all but one drug surveyed. In Ontario, prices were lower than in the U.S. for 28 or the drugs surveyed, while U.S. prices were higher for only two drugs (not all drugs are covered by all plans).
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 04:42
|
|
|
The discussion was about affordability: specifically whether taxes on income above $500k would bring in an amount of money approximately on the scale it would take to afford UHC. The back of the envelope math shows that yes the money to do that is there. I could go back and quote the whole back-and-forth that started with someone claiming UHC is impossible without huge tax increases on the middle class, but you could just scroll up and read it yourself. I don't think it was meant to be a complete policy proposal that addresses every corner case of every drug everywhere. On the other hand, thanks for posting a source exposing that you were lying about prices only being so high in the US to pay for R&D your source posted:As a result of the substantially inflated prices for drugs in the U.S., Americans effectively subsidize research and development for new drugs worldwide, but that’s not all. Americans also pay for pharmaceutical firms’ large budgets for consumer advertising, which is not allowed in Europe, reports the Journal. Drug companies spend more on direct-to-consumer marketing (which is properly banned on Europe) than on R&D.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 05:15
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The discussion was about affordability: specifically whether taxes on income above $500k would bring in an amount of money approximately on the scale it would take to afford UHC. The back of the envelope math shows that yes the money to do that is there. I could go back and quote the whole back-and-forth that started with someone claiming UHC is impossible without huge tax increases on the middle class, but you could just scroll up and read it yourself. I guess since your straw manning bullshit didn't work you have move to outright lying about what I said at this point. Please show me where I said "prices only being so high in the US to pay for R&D".
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 05:58
|
|
|
Xae posted:The discussion was about one person's analysis. I responded to that analysis by pointing out some pretty big flaws it had. And I am pointing out that those potential inaccuracies aren't large enough to change the overall conclusion that America has enough money to pay for UHC. I agree with you that they most likely exist to some degree, so unless you want to argue that they're significant to the analysis or offer some better numbers there's not much to discuss. Xae posted:I guess since your straw manning bullshit didn't work you have move to outright lying about what I said at this point. Okay. Xae posted:Remember that the marginal cost on drugs is incredibly tiny. If their R&D costs are covered, say by the largest drug market in the world, then they can accept very low prices because their cost per pill is pennies if they don't count R&D. Their cost per pill is virtually zero if they license production. "their cost per pill is pennies if they don't count R&D". Not true: marketing expenses are higher than R&D, they would need to "not count" both. Neglecting to mention the even larger advertising budget that has a larger effect on prices strikes me as pretty disingenuous, but I'm willing to believe that you probably just forgot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 06:10
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:And I am pointing out that those potential inaccuracies aren't large enough to change the overall conclusion that America has enough money to pay for UHC. I agree with you that they most likely exist to some degree, so unless you want to argue that they're significant to the analysis or offer some better numbers there's not much to discuss. quote:
Your brain broke. Those two statements are not anywhere near the same thing. Xae fucked around with this message at 06:19 on Apr 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 06:17
|
|
|
Xae posted:It is an analysis by some random webmaster trying to run a website for politics. That is it. Using at the basis for a discussion is pretty dumb. The analysis is too bad to use as a basis for anything. That was the entire point of my original post. You haven't shown that. All you've offered is some vague handwaving about how "pills will have to cost somewhere between $America and $Canada+1". Xae posted:What the gently caress? Do you have a problem comprehending basic arithmetic or something? For a drug company to profit, they must sell their drugs at a price high enough to cover all of the other expenses in their budget. If they didn't count R&D, they still wouldn't be able to sell their drugs for "pennies" to cover the manufacturing costs because the drug prices would still need to cover their advertising budget which is an even larger line item than R&D. No doubt you just totally forgot about the single largest expense of the pharmaceutical industry when you were claiming that R&D costs make up the difference between pennies per pill and tens or hundreds of dollars per pill. An expense that provides no benefit to anyone and could be eliminated immediately for massive savings, but which defenders of the drug industry always seem to forget about, for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 06:27
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Do you have a problem comprehending basic arithmetic or something? For a drug company to profit, they must sell their drugs at a price high enough to cover all of the other expenses in their budget. If they didn't count R&D, they still wouldn't be able to sell their drugs for "pennies" to cover the manufacturing costs because the drug prices would still need to cover their advertising budget which is an even larger line item than R&D. You have gone pretty far down the rabbit hole. I have no idea why you think he is defending drug advertising to consumers. He was pointing out a problem with an argument made by a source. He was pointing out that the marginal production cost for pharmaceuticals is really small, and that as long as someone else is paying for the massive development cost, drugs could be sold for really cheap. However, someone has to pay for that development cost. It is probably wrong to assume that in the hypothetical scenario that the source posited that the US would be able to be free-riders like Europe is currently, would be able to have someone else pay for the development cost of their new drugs, and would enjoy drug prices as low as Europe does currently.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:what I said is what i meant. your ideas are garbage for the resons specified in that post. your attempts to paraphrase what i said into your garbage ideas are wrong. For a person determining whose ideas are garbage and whose aren't, you sure do post a lot on a dead gay comedy forum Also I've never really heard a great explanation as to why we need to raise taxes for UHC even though we already spend more *public* dollars on healthcare than any other country, let alone the massive private expenditure silence_kit posted:You have gone pretty far down the rabbit hole. I have no idea why you think he is defending drug advertising to consumers. He was pointing out a problem with an argument made by a source. Did you miss that whole part where they were discussing how marketing is a bigger expenditure than R&D? call to action fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Apr 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 10:11 |
|
|
A lot of the most expensive, preliminary research is subsidized by federal governments in "westernized" nations isn't it? US, EU, Japan, etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 22:21
|
|
