Healthcare going forward

[Kulindahr]

One reason for a lower capital gain tax is that part of a long term gain is inflation of the currency.
A lower capital gain rate encourages sales, generating the tax. A high capital gain rate makes sales prohibitive and lowers tax collection.
Dividends are corporate income which has been taxed to the corporation and should not be taxed again as it is distributed to the sharholder. Double taxation is unfair and bad economics.
I know that as socialists, you cannot agree, but now you know part of the reasons for our tax policy.

1. ALL income is money that has been taxed before, so the "double taxation" argument is grammer-school level bullshit.

2. Capital gains is irrelevant to this; we're talking about dividends; capital gains only apply when you sell.

3. Your puerile group baiting is overdue for a penalty from the mods.

 

[Kabluey]

^ realistically, capital gains from the sale of shares and assets (single place of residence possibly excluded) should be taxed at the same rate as normal income.

If all sources of income are taxed equally, asset bubbles which threaten to destroy the market economy on a fairly frequent basis would be blunted over time. Market speculation can be profitable and destructive.

 

[KaraBulut]

The concept behind it is that investing in new factories, etc. is beneficial for the economy and should be rewarded. That's why I distinguish between stock purchased directly from a company, which enables a company to expand and improve, and stock purchased from other stockholders -- the first is beneficial to the economy and should be rewarded, while the second is mere paper-shuffling after the benefit has been derived.

That was the theory, but 13 years after the bill passed, we just had an election where a significant group of the electorate was angry because corporations weren't investing in new factories (other than to automate with the purpose of eliminating human workers), they had moved more jobs to factories outside the US and they were passing on earnings to shareholders instead of investing in workers.

It seems that the American public sees the effects but they have been sold the concept of "lowering taxes" without understanding the connection.

 

[Benvolio]

There are two possibilities here: either advertising is resulting in people who don't need them taking the drugs, or it's getting people who need them but weren't getting them to ask their doctors. From the evidence, it's far more the former, but let's look at both.

If it's the former, then the companies are profiting from doing damage to people by catering to their worries and making them risk side effects they don't need to. If it's the latter, it isn't the patients who need to hear the information, it's the doctors. So either way, advertising to patients is not benefitting the patients.

Now let's look at the arithmetic: the claim is that drug companies need advertising to sell enough drugs to recoup their costs. But if they're spending more on advertising than on research (and they are), then they could cut their research costs in half by not advertising, or at least by advertising only to doctors. Since the doctors have to do the research to learn whether their patients really could benefit from a prescription anyway, it would serve better to spend far less addressing that narrow audience and save half on research costs.

So the economic argument for advertising is weak at best. On top of that is the fact that such advertising is an attempt to convince people unable to analyze the claims that they need a substance, and is thus immoral (constituting a con). Finally, it is arguably immoral to make a profit off people's health needs in the first place, since it inherently deprives those unable to afford certain care of their full health.

Drug companies would not do the advertising unless it was economically sensible. No one "makes them risk side effects." All the ads do is suggest that they consult their doctors. Many ads say that their doctors will balance the benefit from the possible side effects.
One suggestion I would have is to amend the patent laws to allow a full patent period after the drug is finally approved for the market. This would allow the companies more time during which to recoup their investments before the drugs meet generic competition.

 

[Benvolio]

You seem to be unaware that the government is subject to a thing called the Constitution. It is not allowed to treat citizens unequally.

Government forcing some patients to have to pay a higher price while others are allowed to negotiate a lower price is imposing inequality. Government is not granted any such authority in the Constitution; indeed it is forbidden to do so.

So you've just demonstrated that you suffer from the same affliction you see abundantly in liberals: you don't give a shit about the Constitution if it gets in the way of your ideology.

The agencies are not citizens. If they are victims of discrimination as you claim, it is the government discriminating against itself. The agencies are part of the government.

 

[gsdx]

One suggestion I would have is to amend the patent laws to allow a full patent period after the drug is finally approved for the market. This would allow the companies more time during which to recoup their investments before the drugs meet generic competition.

Why should that be mandatory for drugs and not for every other 'invention'?

They get twenty years, just like everyone else. On average, they get 10 years of marketing their drug at any price they want after the patent is approved. They have plenty of time to make billions of dollars before the market is flooded with cheaper knock-offs.

http://www.news-medical.net/health/Drug-Patents-and-Generics.aspx

 

[smokeshadow]

This is going to get very, VERY messy before it's all over

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/17/14300096/obamacare-cbo-repeal?yptr=yahoo&ref=yfp

 

[Kabluey]

They could just 'repeal' Obamacare and keep the Affordable Care Act...

 

[gsdx]

^ I know one Twitter user who would be happy with that.

 

[Kulindahr]

Drug companies would not do the advertising unless it was economically sensible. No one "makes them risk side effects." All the ads do is suggest that they consult their doctors. Many ads say that their doctors will balance the benefit from the possible side effects.
One suggestion I would have is to amend the patent laws to allow a full patent period after the drug is finally approved for the market. This would allow the companies more time during which to recoup their investments before the drugs meet generic competition.

Someone already posted the patent law periods, and they're substantial.

 

[Kulindahr]

The agencies are not citizens. If they are victims of discrimination as you claim, it is the government discriminating against itself. The agencies are part of the government.

Your answer makes agencies real and ignores citizens. The government is discriminating against citizens by not doing bargaining for bulk prices.

Unless you think that there's no effect on the citizen "customers" from being forbidden to negotiate for prices.

 

[Benvolio]

Your answer makes agencies real and ignores citizens. The government is discriminating against citizens by not doing bargaining for bulk prices.

Unless you think that there's no effect on the citizen "customers" from being forbidden to negotiate for prices.

The indirect effect, if any, is too remote for equal protection prohibition.

 

[Stardreamer]

Trump's promise to allow government agencies to negotiate drug promises is on the Trump-o-meter and he has reiterated it. Expect it to be in the Obamacare replacement plan.

 

[gsdx]

If the government agencies are going to negotiate lower drug prices for some people, you can bet your ass that someone else is going to be paying more to keep the profits at their current rate. After all, according to Ben, it's all about the profits.

 

[Kulindahr]

The indirect effect, if any, is too remote for equal protection prohibition.

If it were a private entity, perhaps, as there is freedom of choice involved. But a government-run agency? No -- for them to violate the Constitution is not permitted.

And how is the effect "indirect" when money for the drugs comes from the citizens' pockets?

 

[Kulindahr]

If the government agencies are going to negotiate lower drug prices for some people, you can bet your ass that someone else is going to be paying more to keep the profits at their current rate. After all, according to Ben, it's all about the profits.

Again, a reason for the government to encourage the formation of fraternal insurance companies; they could band together to negotiate as well. For-profit companies would have little choice but to follow suit, or lose customers to the fraternal outfits.

 

[KaraBulut]

If the government agencies are going to negotiate lower drug prices for some people, you can bet your ass that someone else is going to be paying more to keep the profits at their current rate. After all, according to Ben, it's all about the profits.

The VA currently negotiates prices and it has not affected the price of the medications in other segments of the market. For example, Sovaldi and Harvoni (treatments for Hep C) are normally $1,000 per dose. The VA has negotiated a 50% discount and this has not changed the price of the medication on the rest of the market. Even with the 50% discount, the drug companies are making over $40K per patient for a 12 week treatment for a medication that costs about $1,400 to manufacture.

Trump's promise to allow government agencies to negotiate drug promises is on the Trump-o-meter and he has reiterated it. Expect it to be in the Obamacare replacement plan.

There's a replacement plan?

 

[Stardreamer]

There's a replacement plan?

Several, most of them fairly laughable and inadequate. It is going to be interesting to see what Trump is to propose since he is making some fairly big and often contradictory promises.

 

[gsdx]

Even with the 50% discount, the drug companies are making over $40K per patient for a 12 week treatment for a medication that costs about $1,400 to manufacture.

Are my calculations correct? Isn't that a 2857% profit? So at full price, that's 5714% profit.

How can that be justified? How can it be ethical?

 

[Benvolio]

Are my calculations correct? Isn't that a 2857% profit? So at full price, that's 5714% profit.

How can that be justified? How can it be ethical?

The cost to manufacture does not include research, development, clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approval, advertising, or profit. It may or may not include the investment in the plant for manufacture.