|
A decade old so maybe the numbers have shifted a little butquote:For example, patent-protected brand drugs sell for more than three times the price of generic drugs that sell in a free market.3 This means that the country could save approximately $140 billion a year on its $220 billion annual bill for prescription drugs if the government did not provide patent protection and drugs were instead sold in a competitive market. In addition to raising the price for people who buy drugs, the higher patent protected price makes many people unable to afford drugs. These people either go without certain drugs or use less than their prescribed dosage because of government patent protection. http://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/cnswebbook.pdf Basically it would be cheaper to just fund drug science publicly and relegate the drug industry to merely manufacturing the drugs. But good luck on making that happen. 
HappyHippo fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Apr 4, 2017 |
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 06:16 |
|
|
Lmao epipen two pack at Walgreens now up to 762 usd for express scripts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Lmao epipen two pack at Walgreens now up to 762 usd for express scripts. I had someone literally  "uhhh, syringes and vials of 1:1 epi are super cheap" when I was blasting these fuckers for gouging their monopoly.Yeah, asking a 5 year old child to draw and administer IM medication in the middle of a medical emergency is totally the answer. gently caress libertarians and free market fanboys.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:I had someone literally You can explain to these fan boys that economics has a concept called externalities that impacts their idea and makes them sound like uneducated idiots. It's basically the reason that the government subsidizes flu shots.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
Seems the GOP is going to take another crack at it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/house-gop-health-care-alive_us_58e30030e4b0f4a923b14b10?a2sj8jrudq0bpgb9&ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009quote:hat agreement, which is still far from a reality, would hinge on Republicans accepting changes to their health care bill that would violate a key promise from President Donald Trump, namely that insurers would have to offer plans to people with pre-existing conditions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 06:51
|
|
|
The PPACA will die this time for sure, we promise
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 13:16
|
|
|
Oh good, I was concerned that we were too far from an election and that people might forget how much the GOP wants to destroy their health care. Glad they're fixing that issue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 13:22
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Lmao epipen two pack at Walgreens now up to 762 usd for express scripts. ExpressScripts is a joke and a total ripoff. My workplace has it and I might as well not have insurance for my medicines.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 13:35
|
|
|
After the last debacle, Trump publicly shat all over the freedom caucus. I'm sure the negotiations will go even smoother this time around.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 14:10
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:ExpressScripts is a joke and a total ripoff. My workplace has it and I might as well not have insurance for my medicines. Express scripts notwithstanding, epipen prices skyrocketed (due to bribing express scripts) http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/03/mylan-hit-with-racketeering-suit-over-big-price-hikes-of-epipen.html Hopefully this goes somewhere because the equivalent medicine in the civilized world costs like $5
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
clockworkjoe posted:Seems the GOP is going to take another crack at it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/house-gop-health-care-alive_us_58e30030e4b0f4a923b14b10?a2sj8jrudq0bpgb9&ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009 I'm really impressed with the gop's dedication with loving over old people this time. And being vocal about it. Like jesus, was the problem that AARP didn't hate the first version enough?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:I'm really impressed with the gop's dedication with loving over old people this time. And being vocal about it. I really think they just have no clue what they're doing, but they know what they promised, and they're desperately trying to find some way to do what they promised while having any kind of excuse to pretend they think that delivering that promise will help people. They know it won't, they know it will kill hundreds of thousands of people and destroy the quality of life for millions more, but as long as they can say they did what they promised and claim in this moment, right now, that they think it will be good for people, they can get re-elected.. They painted themselves into a corner but they're hoping they can just stay in that corner long enough for the paint to dry so they can walk out of it without getting paint on their shoes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
Hopefully this blows up in their face like last time especially since they need it done by Friday at the latest.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
empty whippet box posted:They painted themselves into a corner but they're hoping they can just stay in that corner long enough for the paint to dry so they can walk out of it without getting paint on their shoes. The contortions required to visualize this metaphor seems pretty apt for the party as a whole
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
I don't pay a whole lot of attention to RWM, but how many of the major conservative outlets are still calling for Republican blood for not passing a repeal? They wouldn't be doing it if they weren't still feeling heat from their right flank, because there sure as poo poo isn't mainstream pressure to pass a bill.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
clockworkjoe posted:Seems the GOP is going to take another crack at it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/house-gop-health-care-alive_us_58e30030e4b0f4a923b14b10?a2sj8jrudq0bpgb9&ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009 Have they done anything yet that couldn't just be empty promises and bluster?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
Have a friend on Facebook flipping out on Medicare costs rising for his father. Basically they are getting less pills for the same price. What is causing this because he is pissed at Obama since the change happened at the beginning of Jan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 01:56
|
|
Have you seen my apex seals? I seem to have lost them.
|
Fulchrum posted:Have they done anything yet that couldn't just be empty promises and bluster? Apparently not and they only have until Friday to do anything so it's all probably a non-starter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 02:00
|
|
|
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. I didn't say he was defending drug advertising to consumers; re-read what I said. I said his claim that without R&D spending drugs would cost pennies is not true, and he was neglecting (either ignorantly or disingenuously) the advertising expenses that make up a greater proportion of drug prices than R&D. It's important because that wrong assumption underlies the whole "oh it's just impossible to change the status quo" argument and it's false: we could eliminate the largest portion of the sticker price immediately without touching R&D funding at all. Anyway, if we're evaluating what the effect of adopting price controls would be, then yeah the prices in other countries that have instituted those controls is actually the proper place to start. I'd love to see some numbers with deeper analysis than the source he's criticizing, but he doesn't have that. Just vague handwaving and arguments from ignorance that it's impossible to even ballpark the cost. I don't buy it. According to the argument, drug companies have so much power and are able to "jack up" prices globally by so much that what Europe pays today isn't even in the same ballpark anymore. But when I ask the obvious question: if they have that much power why are they leaving all that money on the table instead of squeezing Europe for US prices right now, the response is oh actually the price hikes wouldn't be that much really so small in fact that drug companies just don't bother. It can't be both. Either the drug companies have little power over European governments and therefore current European prices are a good ballpark figure of what US prices could be under similar policies; or drug companies have immense power to squeeze European governments in which case they should be paying much closer to what we pay because corporations don't just leave sums like that on the table out of a sense of charity or fair play.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 03:08
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I didn't say he was defending drug advertising to consumers; re-read what I said. I said his claim that without R&D spending drugs would cost pennies is not true, and he was neglecting (either ignorantly or disingenuously) the advertising expenses that make up a greater proportion of drug prices than R&D. It's important because that wrong assumption underlies the whole "oh it's just impossible to change the status quo" argument and it's false: we could eliminate the largest portion of the sticker price immediately without touching R&D funding at all. This is entirely neglecting that R&D for new drugs should be out of private hands and quite frankly done through publicly funded medical universities. It would be vastly cheaper, safer, easier to govern and review in terms of ethics and animals (if you care about all that), would allow for top-notch researchers to work within the same research structures most other significant breakthroughs are made without the profit motive getting in the way of direction of research, cost/benefit to society and all that patent bullshit. But hey, wishful thinking. This isn't that timeline.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 09:24
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Apparently not and they only have until Friday to do anything so it's all probably a non-starter. I've heard this a lot. Why specifically Friday?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 09:56
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:I've heard this a lot. Why specifically Friday? Cause congress is going on spring break (April recess).
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 10:23
|
|
|
Is there anywhere I can read about why we apparently need to raise taxes to fund UHC (per this thread) and yet we already spend more public-only dollars on healthcare per capita than any country in the world, tia
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
call to action posted:Is there anywhere I can read about why we apparently need to raise taxes to fund UHC (per this thread) and yet we already spend more public-only dollars on healthcare per capita than any country in the world, tia There's lots of places, but the basic reasons are: - Economies of scale (its easier to do in denser and more urban countries in Europe) - The U.S. does not force price controls on all service providers through monopsony or monopoly powers - The U.S. does not conscript doctors into being government employees and apply much lower salaries to them - U.S. costs subsidize medical device manufacturers and prescription drug manufacturers prices in other parts of the world - The U.S. consumes more services (scans, tests, and procedures) than other countries https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/07/why-do-other-rich-nations-spend-so-much-less-on-healthcare/374576/
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
Cant wait for the April town halls to be filled with angry republicans because they didn't kill obamacare.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
Rabble posted:Cant wait for the April town halls to be filled with angry republicans because they didn't kill obamacare. There are like tons of articles about how coal country yokels are waking up to the fact that revoking ACA will probably kill them, but then R congress keeps ACA because the replacements just don't kill enough people. It's dizzying in its strangeness.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:There are like tons of articles about how coal country yokels are waking up to the fact that revoking ACA will probably kill them, but then R congress keeps ACA because the replacements just don't kill enough people. There must be one or two HFC types that knew the bill's effects on their constituents would cost them their seat if it passed, but needed to sabotage it from the right to avoid a primary. A split between a more middle class base of motivated voters who participate in the primary versus less engaged poorer conservatives might have that effect.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
The late senator Robert Byrd (D-KKK) literally put amendments into the law so coal miners could claim black lung benefits faster. The democrats should've hammered that point home in Appalachia and West Virginia but I guess they were too busy pretending to be intersectional feminists for the DC cocktail party crowd.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 02:07
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:The late senator Robert Byrd (D-KKK) literally put amendments into the law so coal miners could claim black lung benefits faster. Racist idiots are going to be racist idiots and vote for those who are racist, no matter how many economic measures you pass for them. Sorry.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
call to action posted:Is there anywhere I can read about why we apparently need to raise taxes to fund UHC (per this thread) and yet we already spend more public-only dollars on healthcare per capita than any country in the world, tia A lot of those savings come in ways that we would have a politically difficult time realizing, like capping doctor's salaries or firing everyone who currently works in the health insurance industry.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:This is entirely neglecting that R&D for new drugs should be out of private hands and quite frankly done through publicly funded medical universities. It would be vastly cheaper, safer, easier to govern and review in terms of ethics and animals (if you care about all that), would allow for top-notch researchers to work within the same research structures most other significant breakthroughs are made without the profit motive getting in the way of direction of research, cost/benefit to society and all that patent bullshit. It already is for a large part. Then someone convinced the universities they need to have a patent office that patents everything and try to turn a profit off the research.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:The late senator Robert Byrd (D-KKK) literally put amendments into the law so coal miners could claim black lung benefits faster. Appalachians did know about that, they believed Trump would help them with his promise of UHC paid by the government, and dismissed rhetoric about repealing the parts of the ACA that benefit them because "Trump and the Republicans won't cut the good parts that we need because people need that"
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 05:12
|
|
|
Flip Yr Wig posted:There must be one or two HFC types that knew the bill's effects on their constituents would cost them their seat if it passed, but needed to sabotage it from the right to avoid a primary. I think there's a lot of suspicion this is precisely what Rand Paul did.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 14:05
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:A lot of those savings come in ways that we would have a politically difficult time realizing, like capping doctor's salaries or firing everyone who currently works in the health insurance industry. Seems to sum it up perfectly, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
Trump is apparently shifting his focus from tax reform back to health care, since the tax reform stuff is apparently going to take so long:WSJ posted:WASHINGTON—After losing a fight to revamp the health-care system, President Donald Trump said last month he was prepared to put the setback behind him and move on to the next challenge, rewriting the tax code. I'm not sure what sort of success this has in passing, but it sounds like another fight on this is on the horizon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
Also, because Trump is loudly threatening the subsidy payments, guess what's going to have to be included in the spending bill if Republicans don't want to shut down the governmentquote:A heavy-handed effort by the president to take hostage insurer subsidies critical to the proper functioning of Obamacare — with the demand that Democrats cooperate to salvage Trump’s own failed health-care initiative — seems to be backfiring loudly. Soon after Trump made it clear (first via a statement from the Department of Health and Human Services, and then in his own words, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal) that he was indeed threatening to stop payment of the so-called Cost-Sharing Reduction subsidies (amounting to $7 billion in 2017 and an estimated $10 billion in 2018), congressional Democrats quickly struck back, reports The Hill: These bills are subject to filibuster in the Senate, and also risk not being able to pass the House without Democratic support because the Freedom Caucus always has some complaint.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Also, because Trump is loudly threatening the subsidy payments, guess what's going to have to be included in the spending bill if Republicans don't want to shut down the government Well, that's one way to bring the Democrats to the negotiation table.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
After the humiliating embarrassment that was Trumps last attempt at this I'm happy he's so willing to stick his dick back in the hornets nest.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
Old Kentucky Shark posted:Well, that's one way to bring the Democrats to the negotiation table. too bad trump won't be invited 
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 06:16 |
|
|
Old Kentucky Shark posted:Well, that's one way to bring the Democrats to the negotiation table. The beautiful ish thing is that the Democrats really can just say no. They have no power except that which is given to them by Republican dysfunction, so they can very easily blame everything on Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 20:33
|
|