Healthcare False Narrative - let the free market fix it !

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Giftedone, Mar 27, 2017.

  1. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They probably will try but - it would be more difficult to justify. At minimum the profits the insurance companies make will be taken out of the cost equation.

    If anyone is pathetic it is you. Your are challenged in relation to math, logic, social science, critical thinking and rational thought.

    I am the first one to step up and criticize Gov't and bloated Gov't bureaucracies. You on the other hand love Socialism (wealth redistribution) and you do not even realize it as you rail against socialism - how pathetic is that ?

    You claim to support the constitution but do not even understand the principles on which this nation was founded and you are in love with the party that tramples on the constitution and these principles. How pathetic is that ?

    As stated before - all first world countries have massively bloated and disgusting healthcare bureaucracies . The fact of the matter is that these - as inefficient and horrific as they are - still cost less and deliver more than our system.
     
  2. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You did not have to read my mind. After realizing that you could not figure out on your how nonsensical your black and white (like there is no grey in between) comment was - I explained to you exactly why your comment was nonsensical.

    Rather than admit your "deer in headlights" moment - you lash out at me for pointing out your flaw and start demonizing the messenger.

    If you have a brain - unlike so many on here - and get caught not using it ... then at least buck up and own up.

    This is not kindergarten or where you get a trophy for losing.
     
  3. Mackithius

    Mackithius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2016
    Messages:
    756
    Likes Received:
    317
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Um no. It's not THAT rare. You're talking OVER 2 million people, in the US, that have Hep C. Of which, 90+ percent have strains treatable by their regimen. Don't lecture me on this crap. I'm in health care and know Gilead through and through. Rode their stock as it bulled through 110. They recouped their losses the first year of its release and with their insane pricing, that year they weren't even close to running at capacity, and served less than 1 percent of the afflicted population.

    Who say what now? If you're going to dissect pharm with me use statistics, otherwise you miss he boat. "Rare disease" is not an argument. Let's actually talk numbers if you wanna go that direction.
     
  4. FAW

    FAW Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,003
    Likes Received:
    3,849
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course you are conveniently ignoring the reality that of those 2 million, the VAST MAJORITY are not even aware that they are infected, thus rendering your number COMPLETELY useless as a valid estimator of the domestic market for this drug. When people are diagnosed with this condition, they are treated with anti viral medication, and of those, 50-90% of people get better. In fact, 15-45% of people get better within 6 months without ANY treatment. None of these people are candidates for this drug, rather it is for the long term chronic patients that have NOT responded to conventional treatment, and are in the small group that have it and are still symptomatic. I am not going to venture a guess at the exact number, because it is not readily available, but suffice it to say, it is NOWHERE near that 2 million domestic patients that you seem to be implying.
    http://www.healthline.com/health/hepatitis-c/facts-statistics-infographic#3


    On top of that, the dynamics for a drug that literally cures a long term chronic disease are far different from the market for other drugs. Because it is a long term chronic disease, you have a wide range of people that have acquired it over the last 70 years. Once the problematic symptomatic ones have been treated, at some point, you are left only with the newly diagnosed/newly problematic as opposed to the collection of people that have fallen into that category over the last 70 years. I am familiar with this phenomena because at one point I sold something called High Frequency Chest Wall Oscillation that faced the exact same dilemma. When approved, almost every person living with Cystic Fibrosis was prescribed one of these $10,000 devices. After a few years, all Cystic Fibrosis patients had one, and it was then only written for the newly diagnosed which is a very small number. In effect, you are talking about a drastically shrinking market, and the same principle applies to this Hep C med.

    It also differs from other medications because it is a one treatment regimen, and then that patient is done with it for life. This isn't a Lipitor where a patient gets on it and will be a customer for decades. Additionally, don't forget that this is treating a patient population that when symptomatic, requires a lifetime of hospitalizations and medical bills. In the long run, this is actually saving the medical system money, not costing it more.

    I am not saying that this drugs price is or isn't too high, rather I am acknowledging that the calculation is infinitely more complex than your simpleton but all encompassing assumption that it is unethical, which happens to be based on literally nothing, other than looking at a price tag. NO, the domestic market is NOT "over 2 million people". I am sorry to have to burst your sanctimonious bubble, especially because you seemed so proud of yourself when declaring (albeit incoherently) "Who say what now?".....lol. I will have to take your word that you "rode their stock as it bulled through 110", but I fail to see why that is relevant to this conversation. It does however make me marvel at your willingness to profit off of what you see as such an evil company with immoral tactics, and how you seemingly are so quick to abandon your morals when you think that you can make a buck. If I honestly believed that their actions are unethical as you do, I would never attempt to profit off of what I considered such debauchery, but that's just me. I suppose I cannot expect everyone to live their life with a functioning moral compass.

    Do not twist my words into thinking that I am shedding a tear for this company. They invented a drug that literally cures a highly problematic long term chronic disease. To my knowledge a drug that literally produces a cure is virtually unprecedented since the advent of antibiotics, and I am sure they are making a lot of money as a result. By the same token, they SHOULD make a lot of money. They placed a huge gamble, and they hit the jackpot. The potential to hit the jackpot is what makes company's gamble in the first place. If we want medicine to advance, we NEED them to continue gambling. Rather than castigating this company, we should just as well be marveling at how they have advanced mankind. If advancing mankind requires 12 years of high prices (while still lowering overall costs to the system), then so be it. Sounds like a win/win to me.
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2017
  5. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Which socialism is that?
    Be specific, not just blowhardy
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2017
  6. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The opinion of an extremist alt right blogger does not "disprove" anything except to those who are gullible enough to swallow his disinformation without question.
     
  7. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And?
     
  8. Mackithius

    Mackithius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2016
    Messages:
    756
    Likes Received:
    317
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Price hike of Ofirmev when the company was bought out, neostigmine, vendors with medical equipment, medical journals about cost-benefit analysis, the new antibody regimens for certain cancers. If you work in the field you see this stuff all the time. It's everywhere. The pricing in medicine is out of control. What I just listed were just the first couple things off the top of my head. It's true insurance is a component, but everyone wants to ignore the big elephant in the room when it comes to health care. The price...
     
  9. Mackithius

    Mackithius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2016
    Messages:
    756
    Likes Received:
    317
    Trophy Points:
    63
     
  10. FAW

    FAW Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,003
    Likes Received:
    3,849
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My point is that the calculation is WAY more complicated than meets the eye. While $81,000 is a large sum of money, there are also legitimate justifications for it being a very expensive medicine, and to my understanding the price has dropped significantly already. Not to mention, that isn't the actual cost that insurers pay. Considering that a few hospitalizations ( which are inevitable for symptomatic patients) will cost more than the cure, it is in the health care systems best interest to pay that price, not to mention the almost incalculable value in improved quality of life to the patient.

    I too work in medical (Sales), and have across many different aspects/ specialties for many years. That fact by no means implies that I know everything about this very complicated industry, but like you, it means that I have a perspective and understanding that most lack. With that being said, there is a wide divergence of opinion within the industry, so no one person can pretend to be the insiders voice.

    In regards to your statement about planned obsolescence, I am not so sure I would label that a flawed "system". Supply and demand isn't so much a system as it is a set of realities that exist when buying and selling anything. I have no doubt that manufacturers could probably build an oven that would last virtually forever, but the materials and tolerances used would cost so much more that your average consumer would opt for the less expensive model. In fact, commercial ovens probably fit that bill, but very few people are going to spend $10,000 for a home oven. That is supply and demand at work. The only way for there to be a "system" would be to have a planned economy, which I would oppose on many levels.
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2017
  11. Mackithius

    Mackithius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2016
    Messages:
    756
    Likes Received:
    317
    Trophy Points:
    63
    To base a modern economy, where we've conquered most of nature's forces, on constant production ad infinitum is most certainly flawed. We don't have infinite resources on Earth. We should start acting like it. This means restructuring our economy before we HAVE TO. But that's another conversation.

    I know the calculation is complicated. At the end of the day though, the price is the price. And it shouldn't be so astronomical. The only way I'd care is if Gilead was still in the neg from the research. That's not the case. In face their swimming in cash. A company in that case should drop the price. But I get it... longevity and maximizing margins. That I understand doesn't make it right... which is why I talk about it.
     
  12. FAW

    FAW Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,003
    Likes Received:
    3,849
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What are you suggesting as an alternative ?
     
  13. Mackithius

    Mackithius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2016
    Messages:
    756
    Likes Received:
    317
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Well I only know of two that I can think of.

    1. The often criticized resource based economy, where interest rates on loans do not exist. This fixes the money supply. The problem? No incentive for ingenuity. How would we advance?

    2. Reward longevity. Got a product that lasts forever and solves a social problem? Find a way to reward these businesses. They created a product that lasts forever. That's great for resources on this planet. They shouldn't go bankrupt, which is their fate in the current model.

    As it stands, companies are only rewarded when they sell. After that moment, nothing matters. So that's prioritized. So incentive how long it lasts not just selling the damn product. I don't know... just thinking out loud. Clearly our current way is short term only. And that's always the first step, the recognition that there is a problem.
     
  14. FAW

    FAW Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,003
    Likes Received:
    3,849
    Trophy Points:
    113
    With all due respect, I do not believe that either of those suggestions are realistic.
     
  15. Mackithius

    Mackithius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2016
    Messages:
    756
    Likes Received:
    317
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Which is why eventually we will all crash and burn. And we will deserve it.
     
  16. FAW

    FAW Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,003
    Likes Received:
    3,849
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because neither of your two suggestions are realistic.... "That" is why we will all crash and burn and deserve it ? I don't understand what you are trying to say.
     
  17. Mackithius

    Mackithius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2016
    Messages:
    756
    Likes Received:
    317
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It's not realistic because it's a situation we've never encountered. We CANNOT continue with our current way of life indefinitely. It's maths say no. I say we'll all burn because it all falls apart once we lose the ability to keep growing and producing.

    It's funny though. ALL alternative theories are always shot down. Anything to the contrary of the status quo. My are just two ideas. Maybe it's not right. But what I know is complacency never leads to better things.
     
  18. FAW

    FAW Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,003
    Likes Received:
    3,849
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you actually explained your solution, I would be more than happy to address it in depth, up until this point you have said nothing that goes beyond a platitude.
     
  19. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thank the FDA for making it cost prohibitive to enter the market. IV acetaminophen formulations should be easy to bring to market. Age old off patent drugs should be easy to bring to market, but they're not.
    Government facilitated monopolies create price gouging opportunities. Don't you feel protected?
    Lastly, somebody is paying these prices. Businesses can't charge what customers can't pay. The beauty of third party payers. No individual should carry anything but catastrophic policies
     
  20. Mircea

    Mircea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    4,075
    Likes Received:
    1,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It doesn't have to work anywhere else in the world to be a valid plan. The evolution of medical care and health plan coverage in the US is unique to the US, thus the solution is unique as well.
     
  21. Mircea

    Mircea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    4,075
    Likes Received:
    1,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The fact that it has not been attempted in the Modern Era of Medicine is not a reason to dismiss it.
     
  22. GreenBayMatters

    GreenBayMatters Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2016
    Messages:
    5,044
    Likes Received:
    3,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    One would think so, but you never know when government might interfere with supply and demand.

    In 1997, the Clinton administration supported an experimental program in New York that paid medical schools to train fewer doctors to reduce "a glut of physicians.-Wikipedia Clinton health care plan of 1993
     
  23. Mircea

    Mircea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    4,075
    Likes Received:
    1,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, "The subjects were interviewed only once and the study tries to link their insurance status at that time to mortality a decade later. Yet over the period, the authors have no idea whether subjects were insured or uninsured, what kind of medical care they received, or even cause of death."

    The high cost of medical care is largely due to hospital monopolies and cartels, which collude to fix prices. The high cost of health plan coverage is due to high medical costs and government interference at the State and federal levels. Just as soon as you fix those problems, both medical care and health plan coverage become affordable.

    Since the Liberals are so concerned about over-population, what do you care if someone dies?

    The Government Printing Office is a credible link.

    https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg36783/html/CHRG-110hhrg36783.htm
     
  24. Mircea

    Mircea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    4,075
    Likes Received:
    1,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I see Americans subsidizing the cost of pharmaceutical drugs for people in other countries. American health plan providers are free to use their clout to negotiate the prices of prescription drugs.
     
  25. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is certainly not a reason to experiment on it with the richest country on the planet
     

Share This Page