Make a Prediction

WetdogWetdog Senior MemberPosts: 5,149 Senior Member
I understand that Colorado has a referendum on enacting a single payer health system. If they do, and if it is successful, what happens next? Does the whole industry change? Can it change? will they let it change?

As that pharma guy said, were not in the business to help people. And that other young turk pricing those cancer drugs at an insane level. He promised to bring down the prices, and quietly didn't. I understand that one company then lowered their prices for the same drugs to $1.00. Who says all corporate guys are pure evil, well, not quite all of them I guess. You hope he isn't just being self serving. The greed sure won't go away, they'll just have to accept lower profits. Anything is preferable to what's going on now. the price gouging is on an epic scale. It can't be sustained in my opinion, as it is.
I find the assault on free thought disturbing,
I find the willingness to give it up frightening.
«1

Replies

  • Scott ButnerScott Butner Senior Member Posts: 3,918 Senior Member
    I don't pretend to understand health care economics, but I'm not sure if implementing single payer at the state level will drive prices down, more a matter of insuring access to everyone.

    which itself is a laudable goal.

    I think that there are other fixes that have to happen before the rate of price increases will come down -- including incentivizing healthier lifestyles/behaviors (otherwise, people like me end up having heart attacks and screwing up things for everybody else by incurring huge costs).
  • WetdogWetdog Senior Member Posts: 5,149 Senior Member
    Rates across the board aren't going to change unless far more people are being covered. I have no answers either, nor have any grasp of this step and if and what it could mean down the road...if there is any "long" road ahead. just looking for thoughts.

    $50 or $70 dollars charged to you for a bag of saline when it cost about two cents is a good place to start, and also allow drugs to come in from Canada, hell we let in seafood from Asia that has been raised on pig crap, and veggies from Mexico grown in human crap---NOT milorganite. Also would help if states could negotiate for drugs.
    I find the assault on free thought disturbing,
    I find the willingness to give it up frightening.
  • EdBEdB Senior Member Posts: 2,941 Senior Member
    Ending the money system would eliminate the inequities of which you speak. Single payer is a step in the right direction but as long as corporations can dictate prices, the ridiculous profit gouging will get worse. Universal healthcare as a birthright is possible now but not realistic as long as the money system exists. Even countries like Canada, England, and France who have tried it have problems because of money.

    Good to hear from you again Michael.
  • jbillyjbilly Senior Member Posts: 5,333 Senior Member
    Wetdog wrote: »
    Rates across the board aren't going to change unless far more people are being covered.

    More people get covered and the rates in CO don't go down. How odd.

    http://www.9news.com/story/money/2015/10/24/individual-health-insurance-costs-rising-steeply-in-colorado-next-year/74528386/
  • Shawn C.Shawn C. Senior Member Posts: 7,027 Senior Member
    The populace gets effed and the big pharma and insurance companies still find a way to win. The game is rigged; no other outcome is possible.
  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 10,226 Senior Member
    Wetdog wrote: »
    As that pharma guy said, were not in the business to help people. And that other young turk pricing those cancer drugs at an insane level. He promised to bring down the prices, and quietly didn't. I understand that one company then lowered their prices for the same drugs to $1.00. Who says all corporate guys are pure evil, well, not quite all of them I guess. You hope he isn't just being self serving. The greed sure won't go away, they'll just have to accept lower profits. Anything is preferable to what's going on now. the price gouging is on an epic scale. It can't be sustained in my opinion, as it is.
    Wetdog wrote: »
    $50 or $70 dollars charged to you for a bag of saline when it cost about two cents is a good place to start...

    And this is the biggest problem. It's how much we pay not who pays. ACA attacked the wrong end of the problem in my opinion.
  • States can't pre-empt federal law. How would this be legal?
  • FishTXFishTX Super Moderator Posts: 8,074 Senior Member
    Joe K. wrote: »
    And this is the biggest problem. It's how much we pay not who pays. ACA attacked the wrong end of the problem in my opinion.

    Even if the ACA attacked the "right" end of the problem, what could it do? Medicine is largely privatized and capitalism. How do you bring down the costs of drugs, operations, lab tests etc.? Those making the big bucks would say government is interfering. They would say "I spent $3 million on R&D, and if I want to charge $750 a pill, that's my business. Not my problem if most can't afford it."
    "We have to find someone who can not only fly this plane, but who didn't have fish for dinner."

    Crooow:This music would work better with women in bikinis shaking all over the place. I guess that's true of any music really.
  • For argument's sake, how would somebody in favor of single payer decide how much a drug company should charge for a new drug?
    How high should be the return on investment taking into account not only the investment in the drug but the need to at least recoup the costs of drugs that don't work?
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,385 Senior Member
    How about we allow a 100% write off for research and development and then as a purchaser negotiate what we will pay for those drugs from there?
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • EdBEdB Senior Member Posts: 2,941 Senior Member
    The charge for a new drug should be zero, the same as any drug.

    The return for discovering and developing a new drug should be the satisfaction of knowing people's health problems have been solved or lessened. If some drugs don't work, don't make or distribute them.
  • EdB wrote: »
    The charge for a new drug should be zero, the same as any drug.

    The return for discovering and developing a new drug should be the satisfaction of knowing people's health problems have been solved or lessened. If some drugs don't work, don't make or distribute them.

    You can't eat satisfaction.
  • EdBEdB Senior Member Posts: 2,941 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    You can't eat satisfaction.

    Not a consideration, abundant food is available.

    You don't get no, satisfaction?
  • How about we allow a 100% write off for research and development and then as a purchaser negotiate what we will pay for those drugs from there?


    First, R&D is already written off.
    Second, if I spend $100 on R&D, my expense net of taxes is $65.

    With utilities, the government will say, "You're allowed a certain ROI." Can you do that with Pharma? What ROI is worth the time and effort of the company and its people? How do you make sure people just don't do crazy stuff, run up the investment, and get the guaranteed return.

    Just saying let the government do it sounds nice, but could be a recipe for disaster. There's a really fine line and there's no reason to expect anybody to know where it is.

    Remember the Good Intentions Paving Company.
  • ricinusricinus Senior Member Posts: 6,214 Senior Member
    EdB wrote: »
    You don't get no, satisfaction?

    I see what you did there..

    Mike
    My new goal in life is to become an Alter Kaker...
  • EdB wrote: »
    Not a consideration, abundant food is available.

    You don't get no, satisfaction?

    Are all kinds of food available? What if I prefer steak over squash, but somebody likes the reverse? Some engineer in Washington going to figure out how to keep us all happy?

    Or will it be diced turkey over mashed potatoes with a side of green beans and a carton of milk everyday?
  • Shawn C.Shawn C. Senior Member Posts: 7,027 Senior Member
    Fixed it for ya:
    Steven wrote: »
    how high should be the return on investment be taking into account not only the investment in the drug but the need for the company's executives to take ski trips to zermatt, own a luxury yacht and buy only the finest of the top-shelf ****?
  • EdBEdB Senior Member Posts: 2,941 Senior Member
    All kinds of food would be available as they are now. The only difference would be the elimination of unhealthy ingredients and toxic chemicals used to produce or preserve them. If processed foods that cause cancer or other deseases such as processed meat in the news today, they would not be available.
  • EdB wrote: »
    All kinds of food would be available as they are now. The only difference would be the elimination of unhealthy ingredients and toxic chemicals used to produce or preserve them. If processed foods that cause cancer or other deseases such as processed meat in the news today, they would not be available.

    No pastrami? F-ck that.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,385 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    First, R&D is already written off.
    Second, if I spend $100 on R&D, my expense net of taxes is $65.

    With utilities, the government will say, "You're allowed a certain ROI." Can you do that with Pharma? What ROI is worth the time and effort of the company and its people? How do you make sure people just don't do crazy stuff, run up the investment, and get the guaranteed return.

    Just saying let the government do it sounds nice, but could be a recipe for disaster. There's a really fine line and there's no reason to expect anybody to know where it is.

    Remember the Good Intentions Paving Company.

    If you get to write off all of your R&D, how can you say you have R&D expense to recoup? Nobody is saying you cannot have ROI, just that it cannot be $749 per pill, as a consumer the government can say what they will pay especially since they are the ones protecting your patent.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • jbillyjbilly Senior Member Posts: 5,333 Senior Member
    EdB wrote: »
    All kinds of food would be available as they are now. The only difference would be the elimination of unhealthy ingredients and toxic chemicals used to produce or preserve them. If processed foods that cause cancer or other deseases such as processed meat in the news today, they would not be available.

    Wow, so now the technocrtats will decide what we eat too. Jeez this sounds better and better by the day. Who wouldn't want this.
  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 10,039 Senior Member
    EdB wrote: »
    All kinds of food would be available as they are now. The only difference would be the elimination of unhealthy ingredients and toxic chemicals used to produce or preserve them. If processed foods that cause cancer or other deseases such as processed meat in the news today, they would not be available.

    Whilst overhead pigs shall fly, equipped with sensors, cameras and mini-missiles to eradicate any bad citizen caught eating verboten food, smoking or drinking.
    Keep your stinkin' government hands off my Medicare.
  • HextallHextall Senior Member Posts: 9,520 Senior Member
    I predict Mets in 7.
  • EdBEdB Senior Member Posts: 2,941 Senior Member
    George K wrote: »
    Whilst overhead pigs shall fly, equipped with sensors, cameras and mini-missiles to eradicate any bad citizen caught eating verboten food, smoking or drinking.

    When people cannot make money from poisoning food to preserve it or increase the yield, they will voluntarily cease committing long term suicide. People are not naturally stupid, they act that way because the money system encourages their greed. Take away the money system and people's common sense will return, no need for the draconian practices you suggest and that exist today in the form of drones (pigs) that fly and assassinate people marked for extermination.
  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 10,226 Senior Member
    EdB wrote: »
    When people cannot make money from poisoning food to preserve it or increase the yield, they will voluntarily cease committing long term suicide. People are not naturally stupid, they act that way because the money system encourages their greed. Take away the money system and people's common sense will return, no need for the draconian practices you suggest and that exist today in the form of drones (pigs) that fly and assassinate people marked for extermination.

    Ahhhh...to dream about a life filled with unicorns and rainbows and gumdrops on every tree...
  • If you get to write off all of your R&D, how can you say you have R&D expense to recoup?

    A write-off is just a legitimate expense that one can deduct for tax purposes. The savings is the amount spent x tax rate. No different than having your own business and deducting some portion of your car expense.

    Are you proposing the government reimburse all R&D expense through tax credits?
  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 10,226 Senior Member
    FishTX wrote: »
    Even if the ACA attacked the "right" end of the problem, what could it do? Medicine is largely privatized and capitalism. How do you bring down the costs of drugs, operations, lab tests etc.? Those making the big bucks would say government is interfering. They would say "I spent $3 million on R&D, and if I want to charge $750 a pill, that's my business. Not my problem if most can't afford it."

    If we turn the question around and ask why healthcare costs so much less in other high-income countries, the answer nearly always points to a larger, stronger role for government. Governments usually eliminate much of the high administrative costs of insurance, obtain lower prices for inputs, and influence the mix of healthcare outputs by arranging for large supplies of primary-care physicians and hospital beds while keeping tight control on the number of specialist physicians and expensive technology. In the United States, the political system creates many “choke points” for diverse interest groups to block or modify government’s role in these areas.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/07/why-do-other-rich-nations-spend-so-much-less-on-healthcare/374576/


    The Affordable Care Act avoids anything remotely resembling price regulation.
    The ACA is built on the idea that, through competition among insurance companies, costs can be brought under control. This is a fantasy.

    http://pnhp.org/blog/2013/07/24/why-does-u-s-health-care-cost-so-much-the-hidden-in-plain-sight-answer/




  • jbillyjbilly Senior Member Posts: 5,333 Senior Member
    Joe K. wrote: »
    Ahhhh...to dream about a life filled with unicorns and rainbows and gumdrops on every tree...

    There is no sugar in technocracy land...put away those gumdrop fantasies fatty. ;)
  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 10,226 Senior Member
    jbilly wrote: »
    There is no sugar in technocracy land...put away those gumdrop fantasies fatty. ;)
    Are there at least drones that will deliver gumdrops?

    Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Fly Fisherman stories delivered right to your inbox.