Sign in to follow this  
Lark

Snore’s reformation must be celebrated.

Recommended Posts

@Snore You seem to be in grave danger of rising from your conservative principles and protecting the weak and disadvantaged from the powerful.   I sincerely hope you and your family’s health is good, and am glad to see you arguing the other side.   

Snore’s wisdom, preserved:

Electric was considered so essential that it became regulated and rates are set by Public Service Commissions around the country.  Not a perfect system, but it kinda works.

 

Natural gas was considered so essential that it became regulated and rates are set by Public Service Commissions around the country.  Not a perfect system, but it kinda works.

 

Home phones were considered so essential that it became regulated and rates are set by Public Service Commissions around the country.  Not a perfect system, but it kinda works.

 

 

Flipping DRUGS that save people's lives are a free market item?  We aren't talking about the cost of a loaf of bread (also impacted by farm subsidies), we are talking a product that has a direct impact on health and potentially on death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lark said:

@Snore You seem to be in grave danger of rising from your conservative principles and protecting the weak and disadvantaged from the powerful.   I sincerely hope you and your family’s health is good, and am glad to see you arguing the other side.   

Snore’s wisdom, preserved:

Electric was considered so essential that it became regulated and rates are set by Public Service Commissions around the country.  Not a perfect system, but it kinda works.

 

Natural gas was considered so essential that it became regulated and rates are set by Public Service Commissions around the country.  Not a perfect system, but it kinda works.

 

Home phones were considered so essential that it became regulated and rates are set by Public Service Commissions around the country.  Not a perfect system, but it kinda works.

 

 

Flipping DRUGS that save people's lives are a free market item?  We aren't talking about the cost of a loaf of bread (also impacted by farm subsidies), we are talking a product that has a direct impact on health and potentially on death.

 

 

No I remain right of center... 

But unlike many liberals AND conservatives I have a well calibrated moral compass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Snore said:

No I remain right of center... 

But unlike many liberals AND conservatives I have a well calibrated moral compass.

But y'see, regardless your politics, having any moral compass at all, will lead you to some some stressful times in this modern world of ours.

And for that illness, only day-drinking seems to help, I've found.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Snore said:

 

 

No I remain right of center... 

But unlike many liberals AND conservatives I have a well calibrated moral compass.

Let’s put that to the test -

how do you feel about “single payer”?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Sean said:

Let’s put that to the test -

how do you feel about “single payer”?

 

 

Support,  as the basic coverage everyone gets HMO, you can buy up from there.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Snore said:

 

Support,  as the basic coverage everyone gets HMO, you can buy up from there.

Holy Jesus, Bernie Sanders is in the house!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Holy Jesus, Bernie Sanders is in the house!

NOPE—- not that far left.   Just right of center 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like you're a reasonable conservative, not a Republican. We need more of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Snore said:

NOPE—- not that far left.   Just right of center 

In the past 30 or so years, the center has moved well to the right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, bhyde said:

Sounds like you're a reasonable conservative, not a Republican. We need more of that.

Now if we can get some reasonable liberals, this country might move again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Lark said:

Flipping DRUGS that save people's lives are a free market item?

We could always look to government instead of markets for innovation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

We could always look to government instead of markets for innovation.

You realize I was quoting Snore there?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

We could always look to government instead of markets for innovation.

 

Nope never said that.  Nor did I indicate that Pharma was not entitled to a reasonable  ROI.  The issue I have is the de facto rationing of medicine based on income.  For example those who elect chemo also elect being impoverished.  That is bullshit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The innovation in the pharmaceutical space is done by the govmint, in particular, the NIH ($30B) and public universities. Basic research (CRISPR) and drug discovery is expensive and risky, two things VCs hate to hear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2018 at 7:55 AM, Snore said:

Nope never said that.  Nor did I indicate that Pharma was not entitled to a reasonable  ROI.

What would be reasonable in that context? Would we need rate regulators to treat the drug market as a public utility or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Would we need rate regulators to treat the drug market as a public utility or something?

 

Given the industry’s inability to self-regulate and the inability for the free market to regulate- yes!

 

Think of how this currently works.  Big pharma gets patents that give members a de facto monopoly on a drug.  There are no controls on what they can charge.  Being profit-driven, pricing is based on either cost avoidance or “what the market will bear”.  The consumers are at thier mercy for the entire patent period. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Snore said:

 

Given the industry’s inability to self-regulate and the inability for the free market to regulate- yes!

 

Think of how this currently works.  Big pharma gets patents that give members a de facto monopoly on a drug.  There are no controls on what they can charge.  Being profit-driven, pricing is based on either cost avoidance or “what the market will bear”.  The consumers are at thier mercy for the entire patent period. 

It's the worst system I can think of. Except for any other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

It's the worst system I can think of. Except for any other.

Oh— horseshit.

 

What logical argument is there against regulation? Free market? But at what cost to we let the free market survive?  How many AMERICANS die or become impoverished because of the price of drugs?  How high do insurance rates need to go?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

One of the worst examples of Congress sucking corporate dick is the ban on Medicare negotiating with drug companies. And there are no controls at all in the US concerning pricing policies of drugs.

 

https://www.drugwatch.com/featured/us-drug-prices-higher-vs-world/

What’s more, a PharmacyChecker.com analysis found 70 percent of the most popular, non-controlled, brand name drugs sold in the U.S. (as identified by IMS Health data in 2015) are manufactured outside the U.S., then imported and sold to Americans at a higher price compared to patients in other countries.

Take Nexium, for example. AstraZeneca manufactures the stomach-acid drug in Sweden and sells it to consumers in the U.S., Canada, U.K., Australia, New Zealand, India and Turkey.

One 40 mg pill costs $7.78 in the U.S. compared to $3.37 in Canada. The price drops even more to $2.21 in the U.K., Australia and New Zealand. In India and Turkey, the same pill costs less than 37 cents.

Abilify is also sold at a significantly higher price in the U.S. than elsewhere in the world. Otsuka manufactures the antipsychotic drug in Japan and sells it in the U.S. for $34.51 per pill. The same pill costs $4.65 in Canada — 87 percent less than in the U.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Snore said:

Oh— horseshit.

 

What logical argument is there against regulation? Free market? But at what cost to we let the free market survive?  How many AMERICANS die or become impoverished because of the price of drugs?  How high do insurance rates need to go?

I can't see regulators applying more wisdom than people with money to lose.

Drug companies pursue blind alleys, sometimes $pending a fortune and getting nothing. If I know the right regulator and $peak to him nicely, I'd bet I can use my drug company to "invest" in a blind alley that's really just a bunch of vacations for me. Oops, lost all that money. But my friend, the regulator, knows that I must make a "reasonable" overall ROI, so the price of other drugs must go up. Of course, someone not on such good $peaking terms with regulators might have more trouble, assuming regulatory competence. A heroic assumption.

I think your 4th question presents a false choice, in addition to valuing AMERICAN lives over others. Consumers faced with a new drug that has a high price can revert to the option they had before someone took a risk and invented the drug: not having that drug at all. The fact that I took a risk and invented something doesn't give you any claim on it.

By the way, what would be that "reasonable" rate of return that people who $peak to the right regulators can expect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I can't see regulators applying more wisdom than people with money to lose.

Drug companies pursue blind alleys, sometimes $pending a fortune and getting nothing. If I know the right regulator and $peak to him nicely, I'd bet I can use my drug company to "invest" in a blind alley that's really just a bunch of vacations for me. Oops, lost all that money. But my friend, the regulator, knows that I must make a "reasonable" overall ROI, so the price of other drugs must go up. Of course, someone not on such good $peaking terms with regulators might have more trouble, assuming regulatory competence. A heroic assumption.

I think your 4th question presents a false choice, in addition to valuing AMERICAN lives over others. Consumers faced with a new drug that has a high price can revert to the option they had before someone took a risk and invented the drug: not having that drug at all. The fact that I took a risk and invented something doesn't give you any claim on it.

By the way, what would be that "reasonable" rate of return that people who $peak to the right regulators can expect?

We Americans are subsidizing the rest of the world in order to give those companies your “”reasonable” rate of return”. That needs to change, and I don’t see it happening without some form of regulation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a little amused at the idea that Snore acknowledged he's a conservative, but one with a moral compass, which is why he's making the argument for two highly progressive policies (single payer healthcare & utility-style regulation of drug companies). I'm not exactly sure he realised the insult he gave to right-wingers with that line, but I for one give him the thumbs up for it. :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I can't see regulators applying more wisdom than people with money to lose.

Drug companies pursue blind alleys, sometimes $pending a fortune and getting nothing. If I know the right regulator and $peak to him nicely, I'd bet I can use my drug company to "invest" in a blind alley that's really just a bunch of vacations for me. Oops, lost all that money. But my friend, the regulator, knows that I must make a "reasonable" overall ROI, so the price of other drugs must go up. Of course, someone not on such good $peaking terms with regulators might have more trouble, assuming regulatory competence. A heroic assumption.

I think your 4th question presents a false choice, in addition to valuing AMERICAN lives over others. Consumers faced with a new drug that has a high price can revert to the option they had before someone took a risk and invented the drug: not having that drug at all. The fact that I took a risk and invented something doesn't give you any claim on it.

By the way, what would be that "reasonable" rate of return that people who $peak to the right regulators can expect?

You really can’t be that naive..... can you?

 

The documented cost of going down a “blind alley” that causes a drug to be abandoned, can be rolled into the administrative overhead that get allocated to the drugs that work.  If the “blind alley” is part of a successful drug, it goes into that drugs cost of development.

 

True example- Voltaren costs 25 Euro in Rome, $125 in Delray Beach.  So as stated by others we are subsidizing the world!

 

Yes the mortality rate in OZ went up I would not be happy.  But I have and will always value Americans before anyone else.  Sorry, NY thing- family always comes first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this