Healthcare going forward

[ballcaphair]

The government does not pay the cost of clinical trials which often cost hundreds of millions and which often fail to obtain regulatory approval. And remember that research, development, trials and advertising are paid from the dread profits from prior medicines sold that liberals hate so much. American companies pay the highest income tax rates among major countries plus state income taxes as well.

Once more for emphasis Auto manufactures do their own R&D to provide safer products with brilliantly higher mileage at a price point that is very competitive in a global economy. And while I'm questioning your reasoning: There are so many apples in the barrel; the apples are distributed and soon the apples are gone. Just follow the apples. (Don't consider who grew, tended, harvested, cleaned, stocked and sold the apples.) And to be specific: apples are money. Follow the apples while laborers pray they don't have a sick day.

 

[KaraBulut]

Once more for emphasis Auto manufactures do their own R&D to provide safer products with brilliantly higher mileage at a price point that is very competitive in a global economy. And while I'm questioning your reasoning...

You also forgot the concept that apparently R&D costs less in every country than in the US. This would be the only logical conclusion because no other country pays what the US pays for pharmaceuticals.

Why pharmaceuticals are cheaper abroad
Americans also pay some of the highest prices for those drugs, relative to the rest of the world.
In order to pay for a monthly prescription for Nexium, the popular acid reflux drug, an insurer in the United States pays, on average, $215 per customer. Yet the same prescription in the Netherlands costs about one-tenth less, just $23...

According to the International Federation of Health Plans, Americans pay anywhere from two to six times more than the rest of the world for brand name prescription drugs.

And apparently, R&D costs are like Lazarus because they rise from the dead after hedge funds buy companies that make generic drugs or after competition from other manufacturers goes away.

Some Generic Drugs See Huge Price Increases
For example, erythromycin in 500-mg tablets had three increases of more than 100%. Its price increased from 24 cents per tablet in 2010 to $8.96 per tablet in 2015.

...For example, the price of 50-mg capsules of the antidepressant clomipramine HCL, which is used to treat obsessive-compulsive disorder, increased over 2000% in 1 year, jumping from 34 cents per capsule in 2013 to $8.43 per capsule in 2014.

Similarly, the price of 20-mg capsules of piroxicam, used to treat arthritis, increased by over 2000% from 9 cents per capsule in 2010 to $1.94 in 2011. By 2015, the price was $1.82...

Is Competition the Reason?

Pharmaceutical companies told GAO that competition is the primary driver of generic drug prices...

According to GAO, an analysis by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has shown this to be the case. For products that attract a large number of generic manufacturers, the average price falls to 20% of the branded price or lower.

 

[rareboy]

wwjd

 

[gsdx]

And apparently, R&D costs are like Lazarus because they rise from the dead after hedge funds buy companies that make generic drugs or after competition from other manufacturers goes away.

And Benvolio just doesn't get that, nor can he justify it. Neither can he understand that the drug companies were making profits over and above the cost of R&D, advertising, and manufacturing at the earlier prices. The higher prices are nothing but greed because they know they can charge that much and get away with it.

It cannot be justified any other way.

The thing is, the same doesn't hold true for other things, like coffee or cars and so on. Imagine if Starbucks suddenly started raising the price of a latte from $2.95 to $6.95 then to $10.95. Think of the uproar. Imagine if car companies suddenly doubled and tripled the price of their family cars. There would be such an uproar.

For those who are too young to remember, there was a time in America's recent history in which the cost of gasoline hit $1.00 per gallon. People would drive for miles to pay 99.8.

Why is there no uproar over the greedy and exorbitant cost of drugs? Because the drug companies do everything they can to convince people that they need their drugs and, even with the lengthy list of dangerous side effect, are willing to pay big bucks to stop their heartburn or to help them not to pee when they laugh.

 

[KaraBulut]

...Why is there no uproar over the greedy and exorbitant cost of drugs?

Two reasons:

1. Because providers have no idea of the cost the medications they prescribe.
2. Because most people with insurance have no idea how much their insurance company pays for the medications. The insured only sees a copay that is often a small percentage of the cost of the medication.

It's no coincidence that many drugs have increased in price since Medicare D went into affect. Prior to Medicare covering prescription drugs, seniors knew how much their medications cost because the majority had to pay for these medications out of pocket. Now that Medicare covers medications, seniors are in the same boat as those with employer-based insurance: they do not see the actual cost of the medication.

For those on employer-based insurance or on ACA plans, increased medication costs are hidden in higher monthly premiums that attempt to offset the losses from coverage for increasingly expensive drugs.

 

[gsdx]

^ I'm guessing, then, that the info and news items we're getting posted in here aren't really 'common knowledge'. I suppose it would take something like Watergate to get the information out to the public.

 

[frankfrank]

MSNBC reporter today: "They were hoping the number would be 7 or 8 million less than that" - like it would, uh, be perfectly OK to kick 14 to 15 million people off insurance??

This is so fucked up.

 

[frankfrank]

The vote on the AHCA will probably be delayed until after the Senate recess. That seems to be the word today, as the monolithic Republican support has definitely been crumbling a bit.

I hope their constituents DO NOT LET UP and "give it to them" in their home states with a quadruple-barreled verbal assault that won't stop...and they'd best better include the massive transfer of wealth to the rich as part of their speech as well. That is a very important aspect of the Republican bills (both House and Senate versions) that is getting VERY scant coverage.

I am seeing some coverage/talk about this massive confiscation of wealth from We The People, ONLY because I tend to mostly have MSNBC on.

I don't watch Fox, but I would almost be willing to bet my *LIFE* that they will never, ever truthfully talk about that aspect on that [STRIKE]news[/STRIKE] propaganda network.

 

[Kulindahr]

Remember, not every idea works out. Often new drugs are researched and tested, they don't work and the expense is lost. That expense nevertheless has to be recouped for the company to stay viable. Further, some drugs are priced high to allow others to be sold lower. Drugs like viagra and cialis, for instance have gone up enormously in price to allow other to be sold at a lower price.

Research and testing are tax deductible as normal business expenses, according to the IRS, Turbo Tax, and H&R Block.

 

[frankfrank]

Drugs like viagra and cialis, for instance have gone up enormously in price to allow other to be sold at a lower price.

Okay, SHOW ME where Big Pharma has lowered the prices on other meds, to offset their insane price increases on some of the "we-got-ya-by-the-balls-and-we're-gonna-gouge-you" drugs, other than those meds that have gone out of patent with generics becoming available.

I DOUBLE DARE you.

And, yes, we want links.

 

[Benvolio]

Research and testing are tax deductible as normal business expenses, according to the IRS, Turbo Tax, and H&R Block.

Indeed, and the deduction can recover part depending upon the tax rate. But to recoup them sales and prices have to be high enough.

 

[Kulindahr]

The effect of the liability law, holding companies liable for punitive damages for failing to advise of possible side effects, makes advertising necessary.

No, it doesn't -- that's covered by the extensive flier for every medicaation and that fact that you have to sign and say you've reviewed the side effects in order to get your meds, or sign that you refused such "counseling" ad want the meds anyway. I have to do that whether I'm going to the local pharmacy or using mail-order, and they say it's required... even if I've been taking the same med for several years.

 

[Kulindahr]

So, the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) has released their review of Trump Care today.

22 Million will be uninsured by 2026, with 15 million by next year.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/senate-health-care-bill-cbo_us_59512a7de4b0da2c731d398e?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

http://www.wesh.com/article/cbo-22-million-more-uninsured-by-2026-under-senate-health-bill-released-last-week/10224434

Yea Donald, that is a Mean bill.

With this one fact:

"Insurers can charge older consumers up to 5 times what they charge younger people, leading to higher costs for older people and lower costs for younger policy holders."

it goes beyond "mean" and passes straight to EVIL.

 

[Benvolio]

No, it doesn't -- that's covered by the extensive flier for every medicaation and that fact that you have to sign and say you've reviewed the side effects in order to get your meds, or sign that you refused such "counseling" ad want the meds anyway. I have to do that whether I'm going to the local pharmacy or using mail-order, and they say it's required... even if I've been taking the same med for several years.

Alas it is not that simple. Recently Johnson and Johnson got his for two massive punitive damage verdicts, one for 72 million, for not advising that talcom power causes cervical cancer--which it probably does not.

 

[frankfrank]

With this one fact:

"Insurers can charge older consumers up to 5 times what they charge younger people, leading to higher costs for older people and lower costs for younger policy holders."

it goes beyond "mean" and passes straight to EVIL.

It gets even worse, as I remember last month seeing that somebody might have to pay $142,000 per year (or some absurd amount like that) if they have pre-existing cancer.

What I'm not sure and I don't remember, perhaps that would even mean that an insurance company could RAISE somebody's premiums, which perhaps were formerly barely affordable in the first place, to such a ridiculous amount AFTER THE FACT. This is tantamount to allowing insurance companies to rescind insurance contracts as soon as somebody actually gets sick, and therefore the insurance company becomes one of Sarah Palin's death panels (though she will never admit it).

Doesn't that entirely ignore the basic concept of what INSURANCE is...to spread risk among the entire pool?

 

[Benvolio]

With this one fact:

"Insurers can charge older consumers up to 5 times what they charge younger people, leading to higher costs for older people and lower costs for younger policy holders."

it goes beyond "mean" and passes straight to EVIL.

Nonsense. The risk of sickness in older people is easily 5 times greater than in young people. Struggle to be logical.

 

[gsdx]

No, it doesn't -- that's covered by the extensive flier for every medicaation

That and the fact that they even claim that there are other side effects that they haven't mentioned. The listing of the side effects is necessary because of the advertising. The advertising isn't necessary because of the side effects.

But Benvolio will continue to use minimal advertising costs and even more minimal R&D costs to justify the 5,600% price increase. People are protected from userers, but certainly not from drug companies.

 

[Kulindahr]

You also forgot the concept that apparently R&D costs less in every country than in the US. This would be the only logical conclusion because no other country pays what the US pays for pharmaceuticals.

Which means that if the congresscritters care about their constituents, they would pass a law shutting down U.S. drug research and require it to be done by overseas companies which are apparently actually capable of doing it efficiently.

The irony here is the fact that U.S. R&D is so expensive proves that what Ben is supporting is NOT a free market, but a captive consumer 'herd' who have no choice but to buy from those the government compels them to buy from. That's a very capitalist outcome, because capitalists love to buy governments so they'll twist the market, making it less free so the capitalists can romp like raptors.

 

[Kulindahr]

Two reasons:

1. Because providers have no idea of the cost the medications they prescribe.
2. Because most people with insurance have no idea how much their insurance company pays for the medications. The insured only sees a copay that is often a small percentage of the cost of the medication.

It's no coincidence that many drugs have increased in price since Medicare D went into affect. Prior to Medicare covering prescription drugs, seniors knew how much their medications cost because the majority had to pay for these medications out of pocket. Now that Medicare covers medications, seniors are in the same boat as those with employer-based insurance: they do not see the actual cost of the medication.

For those on employer-based insurance or on ACA plans, increased medication costs are hidden in higher monthly premiums that attempt to offset the losses from coverage for increasingly expensive drugs.

So what Ben is arguing in favor of is socialized medicine, but it's a socialism for the corporations and the wealthy at the expense of everyone else.

I wonder if the GOP in Congress really understand what will happen to their corporate owners if Medicare is gutted as they intend.

 

[Kulindahr]

It gets even worse, as I remember last month seeing that somebody might have to pay $142,000 per year (or some absurd amount like that) if they have pre-existing cancer.

What I'm not sure and I don't remember, perhaps that would even mean that an insurance company could RAISE somebody's premiums, which perhaps were formerly barely affordable in the first place, to such a ridiculous amount AFTER THE FACT. This is tantamount to allowing insurance companies to rescind insurance contracts as soon as somebody actually gets sick, and therefore the insurance company becomes one of Sarah Palin's death panels (though she will never admit it).

Doesn't that entirely ignore the basic concept of what INSURANCE is...to spread risk among the entire pool?

The GOP in D.C. have appointed themselves one giant death panel.