- Local time
- Today, 12:32
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2003
- Messages
- 17,596
Emails indicate COVID was man made by China... Will this statement get me canceled?
Coronavirus - are we all doomed?
- Thread starter Jon
- Start date
NauticalGent
Ignore List Poster Boy
- Local time
- Today, 07:32
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2015
- Messages
- 7,044
And funded by the US..
- Local time
- Today, 06:32
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2001
- Messages
- 30,899
On the tech side, probably so. On the financial side? Do you recall the furor over the sudden massive increase in the cost of insulin? A lot of drugs cost thousands of dollars a month long after their initial release. I think the Big Pharma financial model still needs regulation. They are scared witless (or something that rhymes with that) over the idea of allowing foreign competition and they DON'T want you to know what they actually charge in foreign countries for the same drug that costs $500 per dose here in the USA.
NauticalGent
Ignore List Poster Boy
- Local time
- Today, 07:32
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2015
- Messages
- 7,044
moke123
AWF VIP
- Local time
- Today, 07:32
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2013
- Messages
- 4,817
I remember reading an article about a Hep-c drug that's wicked expensive. The jist of the article was that it would be cheaper for the government to buy the company, sell off all its parts and retain the patent for the one drug which then could be made generically. I think it also said that the government would make a profit off the purchase and sale of the company.
Isaac
Lifelong Learner
- Local time
- Today, 04:32
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2017
- Messages
- 11,715
The situation with drug prices (and all American healthcare, BTW) is horrible - but, we should try to do everything in our power to come up with solutions that are as agreeable to the free market as we can. As soon as a great lifesaving or life-improving drug comes out, it's tempting to get the feeling as human beings "Oh, how did we ever live without it?" - But we did. We lived, or died, without it, all this time.
We lived without cars for most of human history too, and now it feels like everyone really ought to have at least some car, but not everyone does. Society churns on.
I do support the government severely limiting the patent time for new drugs; yet, the profit has to cover R&D - and certainly do more than that, it has to fund more R&D, and actually provide the incentive to plan for more R&D. A lot of focus is on the drugs that succeed, but there are thousands of busy little scientists with white coats working all day long, all their life long, on a bunch of stuff that fails, too - to come up with the one that succeeds. (or succeeds until we find out it's killing us, like Zantac).
Like Pat said, many things "sound" good on paper. Welfare sounded compassionate to some people in the 60's and 70's, but now in multiple states you can make $80-$100k/year by not working. Of course, those benefits are paid for by robbing those of us who ARE working and the even FEWER who are BOTH working AND paying taxes. We continue to allow the people who pay no taxes - and even the people who don't work - to have the same equal vote as everyone else, in passing laws to demand more taxes to give them more stuff. It's an unfair system that makes no sense. Where that is going to lead (and has) is so obvious a 10 year old could predict it: Slowly, the % of the voting populace who sees it as a no-brainer to earn none-to-low amounts (paying no taxes), yet voting for more taxes on those who pay taxes to give them more stuff, will and has increased. Eventually the minority who is paying for everything will no longer tolerate doing so. People don't like being robbed. Perhaps they'll dump tea in the water or something, I dunno ...
We lived without cars for most of human history too, and now it feels like everyone really ought to have at least some car, but not everyone does. Society churns on.
I do support the government severely limiting the patent time for new drugs; yet, the profit has to cover R&D - and certainly do more than that, it has to fund more R&D, and actually provide the incentive to plan for more R&D. A lot of focus is on the drugs that succeed, but there are thousands of busy little scientists with white coats working all day long, all their life long, on a bunch of stuff that fails, too - to come up with the one that succeeds. (or succeeds until we find out it's killing us, like Zantac).
Like Pat said, many things "sound" good on paper. Welfare sounded compassionate to some people in the 60's and 70's, but now in multiple states you can make $80-$100k/year by not working. Of course, those benefits are paid for by robbing those of us who ARE working and the even FEWER who are BOTH working AND paying taxes. We continue to allow the people who pay no taxes - and even the people who don't work - to have the same equal vote as everyone else, in passing laws to demand more taxes to give them more stuff. It's an unfair system that makes no sense. Where that is going to lead (and has) is so obvious a 10 year old could predict it: Slowly, the % of the voting populace who sees it as a no-brainer to earn none-to-low amounts (paying no taxes), yet voting for more taxes on those who pay taxes to give them more stuff, will and has increased. Eventually the minority who is paying for everything will no longer tolerate doing so. People don't like being robbed. Perhaps they'll dump tea in the water or something, I dunno ...
AccessBlaster
Be careful what you wish for
- Local time
- Today, 04:32
- Joined
- May 22, 2010
- Messages
- 7,758
Funded by deranged socialists
NauticalGent
Ignore List Poster Boy
- Local time
- Today, 07:32
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2015
- Messages
- 7,044
Synonymous terms...
moke123
AWF VIP
- Local time
- Today, 07:32
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2013
- Messages
- 4,817
Where might that be?
NauticalGent
Ignore List Poster Boy
- Local time
- Today, 07:32
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2015
- Messages
- 7,044
I'd be interested too!
moke123
AWF VIP
- Local time
- Today, 07:32
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2013
- Messages
- 4,817
Cool, when you get your bike we can go house shopping together.
Isaac
Lifelong Learner
- Local time
- Today, 04:32
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2017
- Messages
- 11,715
This guy did some research
economics.uchicago.edu
It's not just traditional welfare, it's the combination of things like welfare, extended/glorified unemployment benefits, and Obamacare subsidies.
In Washington state, the annualized value of these healthcare subsidies and unemployment benefits for a family of four can exceed 122,000.
Casey Mulligan | Kenneth C. Griffin Department of Economics
It's not just traditional welfare, it's the combination of things like welfare, extended/glorified unemployment benefits, and Obamacare subsidies.
In Washington state, the annualized value of these healthcare subsidies and unemployment benefits for a family of four can exceed 122,000.
ColinEssex
Old registered user
- Local time
- Today, 12:32
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2002
- Messages
- 9,409
So youre saying in the USA, the patient needing the prescription has to pay this?
Col
Isaac
Lifelong Learner
- Local time
- Today, 04:32
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2017
- Messages
- 11,715
Generally speaking, a normal working person gets insurance through their employer. The insurance isn't perfect, but it takes care of people's needs, with perhaps the exception of the absolute newest and most experimental or expensive drugs - but even those are often covered if they are necessary and there is no generic (non-brand) equivalent.
That "normal working person" scenario also covers the working person's family.
For many years, this scenario worked fine. Two people got married and had a family as you normally would. At least one of the married couple worked full time and took care of their family. Insurance did its part. When the people got older and no longer worked, Medicare (and in some cases Medicaid) took over their insurance needs. They had options to pay a very small fee to improve the Medicare coverage somewhat.
As the USA (along with most other highly developed countries) moved more and more away from the nuclear family model, this -- along with a thousand other benefits of life that made families prosperous, stable and peaceful--no longer worked so well. The percentage of the population that no longer takes care of a normal family or belongs to one has increased drastically. Many people aren't working at all, or are working only a little at a part time job with limited insurance options.
But Pat was talking more about the cost of drugs broadly speaking. "We" meaning whoever pays for it - regardless of who.
The exact same pharmaceutical company will charge USA a lot more to purchase the drug than it does France.
Also, different pharma companies will charge the USA more for essentially the same thing, because perhaps in the USA the drug company is still allowed to hold an exclusive patent, meaning there are no generic (non-brand) equivalents being manufactured for sale to the USA.
That "normal working person" scenario also covers the working person's family.
For many years, this scenario worked fine. Two people got married and had a family as you normally would. At least one of the married couple worked full time and took care of their family. Insurance did its part. When the people got older and no longer worked, Medicare (and in some cases Medicaid) took over their insurance needs. They had options to pay a very small fee to improve the Medicare coverage somewhat.
As the USA (along with most other highly developed countries) moved more and more away from the nuclear family model, this -- along with a thousand other benefits of life that made families prosperous, stable and peaceful--no longer worked so well. The percentage of the population that no longer takes care of a normal family or belongs to one has increased drastically. Many people aren't working at all, or are working only a little at a part time job with limited insurance options.
But Pat was talking more about the cost of drugs broadly speaking. "We" meaning whoever pays for it - regardless of who.
The exact same pharmaceutical company will charge USA a lot more to purchase the drug than it does France.
Also, different pharma companies will charge the USA more for essentially the same thing, because perhaps in the USA the drug company is still allowed to hold an exclusive patent, meaning there are no generic (non-brand) equivalents being manufactured for sale to the USA.
ColinEssex
Old registered user
- Local time
- Today, 12:32
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2002
- Messages
- 9,409
Pat says some pills cost $100 each. Also, insurance companies pay from 0 to 80% of the cost. So let's say a patient is prescribed 28 pills (a 4 week supply at one a day) total cost = $2800. Presumably the patient has to pay the spare 20% not covered by insurance. So it costs the patient $560 for the 28 days supply. Maybe even more if the insurance percentage is less than 80%.
How are repeat prescriptions covered? Like heart drugs etc etc.
Col
How are repeat prescriptions covered? Like heart drugs etc etc.
Col
moke123
AWF VIP
- Local time
- Today, 07:32
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2013
- Messages
- 4,817
The newly weds who bought my old house from me both had health insurance through their work. He was a NYC cop, she worked for a supermarket chain in management. They never switched her insurance over to his because they had to save money to pay their $3000+ a month mortgage. She wound up getting sick and found out just how lousy her employer based insurance was. It had a $1000 a year cap including prescriptions. Turned out her medication was a $1000 a pill, which she had to take weekly. Since it was pre-Affordable care act, his insurance wouldn't cover her pre-existing illness when they did switch her over. Needless to say they didn't last long in the house.
Isaac
Lifelong Learner
- Local time
- Today, 04:32
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2017
- Messages
- 11,715
I wonder who or in what circumstances the whole "pre-existing condition" thing was a bigger deal for.
I'm not denying it existed and was a problem for people, I'm just wondering who.
I had various employer-sponsored insurances through the years that did not have any exclusions for preexisting conditions assuming it was group coverage, before Obamacare mandated it.
It must have been something that was common on the really crappy plans, though, as I do realize it was a problem for a number of people.
Well, guess what though - a lot of liberal policies are just shifting costs around. Constantly making you think one thing is paid for, but all it does is take money from somewhere else. As any accountant knows!
Obamacare didn't magically make insurers continue profiting the same while also requiring them to include preexisting conditions.
They just make up for it in rates and tax money (subsidies) from the rest of us.
So basically the exact same overall effect as if Obamacare regulations never went into effect, before which time you could also spend more to get a better plan that didn't have the exclusion.
AccessBlaster
Be careful what you wish for
- Local time
- Today, 04:32
- Joined
- May 22, 2010
- Messages
- 7,758
I would think the NYC police union would have top-tier health insurance. Usually, union-style healthcare plans include spouses and underage children. It seems like the secondary insurance would cover what the primary didn't.
Isaac
Lifelong Learner
- Local time
- Today, 04:32
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2017
- Messages
- 11,715
What I've concluded about this ongoing discussion in America about the insane costs of healthcare is this:
- The basic problem isn't Insurance. It's the inclusion of a lot of ridiculous, unnecessary stuff.
After going to doctors a few times in Mexico, and after raising children and pondering the set-up of the doctor, the video games in the lobby, the elaborate money spent on Patient Portals, text messaging systems, fancy check in systems, and almost limitless number of layers of contractors in between contractors in between contractors, and just too many expectations on the part of the American consumer--supported by too many regulations from the government - have made it insanely expensive.
If we could just get back to the basics! Give me an office with a couple skilled doctors and a receptionist, that's it. I don't need my kids to play the WII in the lobby, I don't need you to send me 12 letters in the mail every time I change my portal password-heck, I don't need 3-factor secure authentication when I log into my portal, I don't even need a portal or any software, I don't need a a link sent to my phone to inform me that my doctor has sent my rx to the pharmacy (he already said he would, that will do it thank you), and after my surgery I don't need you to hire one person whose sole job is to lift me out of bed, another whose sole job is to wheel me down the hall, another whose sole job is to print my discharge instructions, another whose sole job is to explain them, another whose sole job is to pick up my shoes and put them in a bag -
the whole thing has gotten so ridiculously complicated and you can thank Democrat philosophies on REGULATION for most of that.
we are regulating ourselves out of existence - and the solution, I promise you, someone is going to suggest even more regulation to get out of the regulation hole.
drop all of that crap and give me a doctor sitting on a stool and 15 minutes of advice - and I guarantee you most of the cost would just disappear like a vapor.
- The basic problem isn't Insurance. It's the inclusion of a lot of ridiculous, unnecessary stuff.
After going to doctors a few times in Mexico, and after raising children and pondering the set-up of the doctor, the video games in the lobby, the elaborate money spent on Patient Portals, text messaging systems, fancy check in systems, and almost limitless number of layers of contractors in between contractors in between contractors, and just too many expectations on the part of the American consumer--supported by too many regulations from the government - have made it insanely expensive.
If we could just get back to the basics! Give me an office with a couple skilled doctors and a receptionist, that's it. I don't need my kids to play the WII in the lobby, I don't need you to send me 12 letters in the mail every time I change my portal password-heck, I don't need 3-factor secure authentication when I log into my portal, I don't even need a portal or any software, I don't need a a link sent to my phone to inform me that my doctor has sent my rx to the pharmacy (he already said he would, that will do it thank you), and after my surgery I don't need you to hire one person whose sole job is to lift me out of bed, another whose sole job is to wheel me down the hall, another whose sole job is to print my discharge instructions, another whose sole job is to explain them, another whose sole job is to pick up my shoes and put them in a bag -
the whole thing has gotten so ridiculously complicated and you can thank Democrat philosophies on REGULATION for most of that.
we are regulating ourselves out of existence - and the solution, I promise you, someone is going to suggest even more regulation to get out of the regulation hole.
drop all of that crap and give me a doctor sitting on a stool and 15 minutes of advice - and I guarantee you most of the cost would just disappear like a vapor.
