Trumpcare

[TotalInsanity4]

European countries are relocating R&D to the U.S. which means their current system isn’t enough to fund medical research. So if we imitate that system then we won’t get much innovation anymore.

I'd argue (and honestly, even bet it's the case) that the only reason that happens is that the U.S. is also the only place where one can make viable capital off of drug research, so the contracted companies are getting a kickback. Which, I'm not going to blame them for, if they can make more money doing exactly what they would be in other countries then that makes a lot of sense. What I can't excuse is creating the backbone of a company on which said capital comes before treatment of patients.

 

[Xzi]

I'd argue (and honestly, even bet it's the case) that the only reason that happens is that the U.S. is also the only place where one can make viable capital off of drug research, so the contracted companies are getting a kickback. Which, I'm not going to blame them for, if they can make more money doing exactly what they would be in other countries then that makes a lot of sense. What I can't excuse is creating the backbone of a company on which said capital comes before treatment of patients.

The worst part being that treatment is obviously always going to be prioritized ahead of researching cures when it comes to the profit motive.

 

[SG854]

I'd argue (and honestly, even bet it's the case) that the only reason that happens is that the U.S. is also the only place where one can make viable capital off of drug research, so the contracted companies are getting a kickback. Which, I'm not going to blame them for, if they can make more money doing exactly what they would be in other countries then that makes a lot of sense. What I can't excuse is creating the backbone of a company on which said capital comes before treatment of patients.

Drugs is very expensive to create. European countries and Canada usually pay for manufacturacting costs and not R&D. Which U.S. covers those costs.

People look at how much it costs to produce a drug but don’t count the years and hundreds of millions of dollars for R&D development. Which sometimes European countries aren’t funded enough and have to shift locations to less restrictive conditions.

 

[Xzi]

Drugs is very expensive to create.

So what? Pharma companies probably make $1000 for every $1 they actually put into R&D. Then a lot of that R&D effort is put into making the drugs as addictive as possible so they make more money, and we end up with an opioid epidemic. Definitely not the good guys just because they're the ones putting up the capital.

 

[JeepX87]

Obviously there are plenty of details to be worked out yet, but it's by far still the best option we have to bring our healthcare system in line with the rest of the civilized world. If other large European countries can guarantee healthcare coverage to their citizens, then there's no good reason we can't. Time to stop worrying about what the corporations might think about our progress and just start making progress. The savings from fixing a broken system benefit them just as much as anyone else regardless.

https://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all-plan-cost-save-money-2018-7

Exactly, that why I support Medicare for all and it will work out to get everything resolved. I'm not fan of Obamacare but better than none, especially coverage for pre-existing, expand the coverage to 26 under parent's insurance and close the doughnut hole for Medicare Part D, so there is no doubt that Obamacare will be replaced eventually and there is no ETA because of divided political system, so up to voters to say about healthcare system.

Trumpcare is unlikely either so if Obamacare is gone so we will go back to older healthcare like before Obamacare.

I'm not into hurry to overhaul the healthcare and give voters more time to determine whichever is best for us and our country.

Lasik Eye surgery is really unregulated. Insurance companies won’t cover it. It use to cost $20,000 an eye. Till the free market brought it down to $4,000 through competition. Lasik Eye surgery became cheap because of unregulated competition and not because government subsidized it.

Unfortunately, LASIK is useless for anyone with cataract, including myself.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Drugs is very expensive to create. European countries and Canada usually pay for manufacturacting costs and not R&D. Which U.S. covers those costs.

On top of what Xzi said, the statement "drugs are very expensive to create" is INCREDIBLY conditional, and oftentimes false. Again, I'll refer to insulin prices, which a study shows that if it weren't for an oligopoly that three companies have on the market (all of which reside in the U.S., by the way), diabetics could be paying nearly one tenth of what they pay a month for a year's supply of insulin.

I'll challenge you to think "says who?" whenever you see something vaguely stating the synthesizing drugs is "expensive." The reason I say that is because these gigantic corporations have EXCELLENT PR teams that exist purely to make them look good.

 

[SG854]

On top of what Xzi said, the statement "drugs are very expensive to create" is INCREDIBLY conditional, and oftentimes false. Again, I'll refer to insulin prices, which a study shows that if it weren't for an oligopoly that three companies have on the market (all of which reside in the U.S., by the way), diabetics could be paying nearly one tenth of what they pay a month for a year's supply of insulin.

I'll challenge you to think "says who?" whenever you see something vaguely stating the synthesizing drugs is "expensive." The reason I say that is because these gigantic corporations have EXCELLENT PR teams that exist purely to make them look good.

I noticed 2 things in the article.

1) There is no competitive market. Which goes back to comparison I made about X-Rays and LASIK Eye surgery in an earlier post. The Insulin market isn’t entirely free and is regulated by government through patents which is a problem. No competition to drive down costs.

2) The article is about biosimilar generics not the originals. Originals costs way more in R&D development because the drugs don’t exist and they need a lot of trial and error to create the drug. While Generics can piggy back off the original discoveries, getting a free ride, to create at a fraction of the cost which can bring down prices. Originals need to make up the more expensive R&D then generics do. And you need originals to begin with or no generics available.

Generics also don’t have to be chemically identical to be considered bio equivalent. Sometimes they have side effects that the originals didn’t. They can produce blood levels up to 20% below or 25% above the original to still be considered bio equivalent.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

1) There is no competitive market. Which goes back to comparison I made about X-Rays and LASIK Eye surgery in an earlier post. The Insulin market isn’t entirely free and is regulated by government through patents which is a problem. No competition to drive down costs.

There is, though, it's just not from within the U.S. And so far as I can tell, it's not due to restrictive regulations, it's due to patents and lawsuits preventing any startups from gaining traction. If anything, more regulation in this case would be better, as it would at least define a price that companies would need to hit to be able to work with Medicaid. Alternatively, patent laws on pharmaceuticals would need to be completely abolished (which would be great), but realistically what are chances of that actually happening?

2) The article is about biosimilar generics not the originals. Originals costs way more in R&D development because the drugs don’t exist and they need a lot of trial and error to create the drug. While Generics can piggy back off the original discoveries, getting a free ride, to create at a fraction of the cost which can bring down prices. Originals need to make up the more expensive R&D then generics do. And you need originals to begin with or no generics available.

I suppose I don't know how much of an argument that actually is. There are scientists that genuinely want to improve the quality of human life and aren't just in it for the money. Either way, though, pay is pay; if it comes from Big Pharma and they can do what they perceive is helping, then clearly that's where we're at now. Other countries have clearly shown that government employed biologists and chemists are clearly an effective option as well.

Generics also don’t have to be chemically identical to be considered bio equivalent. Sometimes they have side effects that the originals didn’t. They can produce blood levels up to 20% below or 25% above the original to still be considered bio equivalent.

This is true, but also something that constraining regulatory definitions would fix

 

[Captain_N]

The same way any other countries do

Which is to say the same way we already do, except instead of paying for private insurance you're paying more in taxes. In return, you're paying an institution that isn't trying to put profits before your welbeing

yeah, in a lot of socialist countries the tax rate is over 50%. All the us government wants if more money and they do less with it. Both the dems and the reps say "when we both get the house, the senate and the pres they will do something." Nothing ever happens but larger government that wastes more money then every company in existence. the price of health care is inflated in the US. Moving to Universal Health care will have to solve that problem. Also if doctors are only gonna make about $60k a year then i dont think they will be to happy and might cause a shortage. I dont know why people always look toward the government for the solutions. The government is the problem.

There needs to be personal responsibility/accountability and fiscal responsibility. That is the true problem. To many lazy asses looking to the government for salvation. Look how well that works in cuba north Korea, Venezuela and the tricoms in china.

If Universal Health care is going to work it cant be rationed, has to be paid for. Taxs cant be unreasonable. The health care has to be quality.

Everyone pays into medicare and its not great. I work around alot of vets and more then 60% of them say the VA wont pay for the simplest of preventive procedures. The VA is a form of Socialized Health Care. Does not seem to work all that well. The government cant even fund the post office..... how the hell they gonna handle healthcare.....

 

[the_randomizer]

yeah, in a lot of socialist countries the tax rate is over 50%. All the us government wants if more money and they do less with it. Both the dems and the reps say "when we both get the house, the senate and the pres they will do something." Nothing ever happens but larger government that wastes more money then every company in existence. the price of health care is inflated in the US. Moving to Universal Health care will have to solve that problem. Also if doctors are only gonna make about $60k a year then i dont think they will be to happy and might cause a shortage. I dont know why people always look toward the government for the solutions. The government is the problem.

There needs to be personal responsibility/accountability and fiscal responsibility. That is the true problem. To many lazy asses looking to the government for salvation. Look how well that works in cuba north Korea, Venezuela and the tricoms in china.

If Universal Health care is going to work it cant be rationed, has to be paid for. Taxs cant be unreasonable. The health care has to be quality.

Everyone pays into medicare and its not great. I work around alot of vets and more then 60% of them say the VA wont pay for the simplest of preventive procedures. The VA is a form of Socialized Health Care. Does not seem to work all that well. The government cant even fund the post office..... how the hell they gonna handle healthcare.....

Venezuela, the country whose economy went to crap and where inflation has skyrocketed? Or Cuba, the country that just barely was able to grant smartphones to its citizens? I don't think we should be modeled after those places IMO.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Venezuela, the country whose economy went to crap and where inflation has skyrocketed? Or Cuba, the country that just barely was able to grant smartphones to its citizens? I don't think we should be modeled after those places IMO.

Or, say, Finland, the current happiest country in the world

 

[Captain_N]

Venezuela, the country whose economy went to crap and where inflation has skyrocketed? Or Cuba, the country that just barely was able to grant smartphones to its citizens? I don't think we should be modeled after those places IMO.

That's my point. People think large government control is great. They never mention when it fails. and it fails often. The United States system of rule is a grand experiment. Nothing has been tried like it. More people want to come to the unites states then any other country. The people wanting to come to the US are all escaping forms of government the jack ass liberals want to turn the US into. Does not make sense. In socialism you cant even own land.
I bet burnie sanders did not tell his voters that...

Or, say, Finland, the current happiest country in the world

The tax rate in Finland is 51% would you like giving half your income to the government? I sure as hell dont.
You also realise for socialism to work everyone has to work. Actuly Finland is moving away from socialism.

 

[the_randomizer]

Or, say, Finland, the current happiest country in the world

Would rather follow in their footsteps than a country whose entire economic system has collapsed or is run by Communism *shrug*

That's my point. People think large government control is great. They never mention when it fails. and it fails often. The United States system of rule is a grand experiment. Nothing has been tried like it. More people want to come to the unites states then any other country. The people wanting to come to the US are all escaping forms of government the jack ass liberals want to turn the US into. Does not make sense. In socialism you cant even own land.
I bet burnie sanders did not tell his voters that...

No system is perfect, some are better than others, but in the end, you pick your poison, essentially.

 

[Captain_N]

Or, say, Finland, the current happiest country in the world

Would rather follow in their footsteps than a country whose entire economic system has collapsed or is run by Communism *shrug*

No system is perfect, some are better than others, but in the end, you pick your poison, essentially.

Yep all systems have issues because Humans are greedy lol

 

[JeepX87]

yeah, in a lot of socialist countries the tax rate is over 50%. All the us government wants if more money and they do less with it. Both the dems and the reps say "when we both get the house, the senate and the pres they will do something." Nothing ever happens but larger government that wastes more money then every company in existence. the price of health care is inflated in the US. Moving to Universal Health care will have to solve that problem. Also if doctors are only gonna make about $60k a year then i dont think they will be to happy and might cause a shortage. I dont know why people always look toward the government for the solutions. The government is the problem.

There needs to be personal responsibility/accountability and fiscal responsibility. That is the true problem. To many lazy asses looking to the government for salvation. Look how well that works in cuba north Korea, Venezuela and the tricoms in china.

If Universal Health care is going to work it cant be rationed, has to be paid for. Taxs cant be unreasonable. The health care has to be quality.

Everyone pays into medicare and its not great. I work around alot of vets and more then 60% of them say the VA wont pay for the simplest of preventive procedures. The VA is a form of Socialized Health Care. Does not seem to work all that well. The government cant even fund the post office..... how the hell they gonna handle healthcare.....

Honest with you, I'm not impressed with Medicare that I currently have one, so they only pay 80% of approved medical care, but 80% isn't actually real number anymore, so they actually paid 50% or less if both of approved and unapproved are taken in factor, so if your ER bill is $3,000 so your out of pocket expense after Medicare cover will be $600 to $1,800 after Medicare paid rest of approved care. The drug coverage under Medicare isn't good and you will pay more for higher tier, so they only pay 40%, so if one drug cost $600 per month so you have to pay $360 per month for drug. It is big deal if you are low to middle income. It is not unheard to see many patients have over thousand dollars of debt in medical bill after Medicare paid, so they end up in bankruptcy eventually due to subpar coverage and confusion.

Medicare can be very helpful if you have private medical insurance so usually cover 100%, otherwise it is totally useless for Americans with fixed income.

There is other way - get Medigap to cover 100% as possible but your premium on Medicare + Medigap could be $500 per month, not including the drug coverage, get Medicare Advantage so you will only pay based on fee for service, such as $30 copayment for doctor visit or $100 for emergency room, or relocate to state that offer generous Medicaid so they usually cover 100%, so it is helpful if you are on fixed income.

By the way, I'm disabled gamer due born with rare genetic disorder that limit my opportunity to find a job, so I never like Medicare.

Medicare needs to be revamped if want goes for all, so I want one that similar to Canada or Australia.

 

[Localhorst86]

Lasik Eye surgery is really unregulated. Insurance companies won’t cover it. It use to cost $20,000 an eye. Till the free market brought it down to $4,000 through competition. Lasik Eye surgery became cheap because of unregulated competition and not because government subsidized it.

Lasik eye surgery is not a medical necessity, it's a cosmetic operation because you don't want to wear glasses. And when people have to choose between a $100 pair of glasses and a $20.000 surgery (which, mind you, might not have permanent results*) it is clear that most people would not chose to pay such an ammount of money and either LASIK clinics have to drop their prices or be out of clients. It became cheap because it had to, otherwise no one would have wanted.

For the record, I had LASIK eye surgery about three years ago and it was 2.000€ (about $2.200 back then) for both eyes (mind you, I could have gotten it a lot cheaper in other countries like turkey, I know a few colleagues of mine who paid 800€ for both eyes over there, but I chose to do it localy where I live). I had to pay all by myself as even my additional private insurance (on top of our mandated health insurance) would not cover cosmetic operations like that and I understand that. They would have payed me glasses and they would have payed a majority of the costs for contact lenses if I chose that. If it hadn't been affordable for me to get the surgery, I'd just have lived with glasses or contact lenses.


*Your eyesight can always shift, that's why LASIK clinics recommend to only get surgery when your eyesight likely has settled in and not changed for at least three years. And even then, they'll let you know that as you get older, you might need to wear reading glasses.

 

[JeepX87]

Lasik eye surgery is not a medical necessity, it's a cosmetic operation because you don't want to wear glasses. And when people have to choose between a $100 pair of glasses and a $20.000 surgery (which, mind you, might not have permanent results*) it is clear that most people would not chose to pay such an ammount of money and either LASIK clinics have to drop their prices or be out of clients. It became cheap because it had to, otherwise no one would have wanted.

For the record, I had LASIK eye surgery about three years ago and it was 2000€ for both eyes. I had to pay all by myself as even my additional private insurance (on top of our mandated health insurance) would not cover cosmetic operations like that and I understand that. They would have payed me glasses and they would have payed a majority of the costs for contact lenses if I chose that. If it hadn't been affordable for me to get the surgery, I'd just have lived with glasses or contact lenses.


*Your eyesight can always shift, that's why LASIK clinics recommend to only get surgery when your eyesight likely has settled in and not changed for at least three years. And even then, they'll let you know that as you get older, you might need to wear reading glasses.

If you develop cataract so lenses will become useless and need to be replaced with artificial lenses via surgery.

The cataract is common if you are over 60 years old but it do occur in young adults if you have eye diseases.

 

[Localhorst86]

If you develop cataract so lenses will become useless and need to be replaced with artificial lenses via surgery.

The cataract is common if you are over 60 years old but it do occur in young adults if you have eye diseases.

Yes, I know. LASIK can't fix cataracts and it can't aleviate the risks of getting it. But at the same time, at least what I was told, it doesn't increase the risk either. So it's a risk you have with 20/20 vision, glasses, contact lenses or LASIK surgery either way.

My point was, though, that LASIK simply isn't a necessity and therefore a bad example to bring up as an example for regulation. It's just a thing people want and if they can't afford it, they wont get it.

It's not comparable to reliable diagnostic methods like X-Rays or medically necessary (life saving) operations/medication.

When people can't afford LASIK: LASIK clinics close. People are going to wear glasses or contact lenses. No one's going to die.
When people can't afford getting proper diagnostics: Serious illnesses or injuries get by undiscovered. People die.
When people can't afford life saving operations: People die.

 

[JeepX87]

Yes, I know. LASIK can't fix cataracts and it can't aleviate the risks of getting it. But at the same time, at least what I was told, it doesn't increase the risk either. So it's a risk you have with 20/20 vision, glasses, contact lenses or LASIK surgery either way.

My point was, though, that LASIK simply isn't a necessity and therefore a bad example to bring up as an example for regulation. It's just a thing people want and if they can't afford it, they wont get it.

It's not comparable to reliable diagnostic methods like X-Rays or medically necessary (life saving) operations/medication.

When no one can afford LASIK: LASIK clinics close. No one's going to die.
When no one can afford getting proper diagnostics: Serious illnesses or injuries get by undiscovered. People die.

Make sense for sure.

The cataract surgery could cause partial to full blindness as complication if have eye diseases so it is devastating for gamers who have to depends on vision to play video game, so that why my doctor told me to wait longer as possible.

 

[Localhorst86]

Make sense for sure.

The cataract surgery could cause partial to full blindness as complication if have eye diseases so it is devastating for gamers who have to depends on vision to play video game, so that why my doctor told me to wait longer as possible.

but a cataract surgery is not a LASIK operation. And I am almost certain healthcare would see it also as a medical necessity if you're affected to prevent blindness and it would be covered (at least over here) by the mandated insurance. It sounds to me like you're affected by this so I wish you well, hope you'll be fine.