Ok. GOP what is your solution to the healthcare crisis in the US? Do nothing?

I don't recall ever hearing anyone argue that.

 

What I don't understand is why insurance industries have been the focus. Even for those who want to regulate healthcare, and believe doing so will make it better, insurance industries are not the ones with massive profit margins--the pharmaceutical companies are. And they are happily in bed with the FDA.

The insurance industry has a 4.54% profit margin--pretty modest. The pharmaceutical industry on the other hand has a whopping 23% profit margin. And a lot of that profit is from the FDA banning competition and a terrible patent system that makes competing products almost impossible to come by. And when government regulations force insurance to cover such expensive drugs, rates skyrocket. Because the drugs are mandated to be covered, pharmaceutical companies can hike up the cost without remorse. And it works out beautifully for them, because the insurance companie are blamed for the price hikes.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/02/health-insurance_industry_stil.html

 

So you mean the ROMed Clinic ISN'T conducting a clinical trial on bile duct cancer? That is all that I have said. As far as the rest?.......lol.......get a life, and STOP putting words into my mouth. Please show me ANYWHERE that I have said "it's impossible for any hospital outside the USA to be better at a specialty or specific treatment"? It seems to me that you are debating an imaginary figure in your head and somehow projecting your imaginary figure's words onto me. I can appreciate that you are anxious to talk about what a "world traveler" that you are, but you dont need to make up imaginary arguments in order to do so. You see, while you are apparently a man of the world, I happen to work in medicine, so I would never in a million years make the outrageous claim that " it's impossible for any hospital outside the USA to be better at a specialty or specific treatment".

Mr Man of the World you truly do crack me up!

 

The actual “life” of a pharmaceutical product/drug patent is 20 years, but is applied before clinical trials are entered.
Likewise the FDA controls the processes involved in the clinical trails that often take at least 8 years to complete before the drug is allowed to be sold on the open market.
So the actual “life expectancy” of a drug patent is 12 years, and then generic manufactures can come in and make the same drug, virtually eliminating any competition.

So … the generic manufactures reap the benefits of all the research and development bought and paid for by the original pharmaceutical company that held the patent.
That company makes a serious profit margin for 12 years to pay for the development of that drug, as well as funding the development or possible failure of new and upcoming drugs.

They fund 40 years of research (for that drug and others) off of 12 years of sales regarding a drug they financed, while legislation allows parasitical companies to come in and benefit off a product they didn't develop, test or go through the patent process with.

 

Generic manufacturers, are eliminating competition? That doesn't really make sense...they are the competition. The fact of that matter is that these drugs are mandated to be covered by insurance plans, raising the insurance costs. This is what tends to happen:
The game is played like this:

1) Drug loses patent and goes from tier 1 on patient's insurance to tier 3.

2) As a result, patient's copay increases from $10 to $60.

3) Drug company then gives patient a voucher worth $50 to reduce patient's copay back to $10.

5) Since the cost to the patient hasn't changed, they don't switch to generic competitor.

4) Drug company can then continue to gauge insurance company for ridiculous prices.

Patents have also resulted in the deaths of millions of Africans suffering from AIDS. Generic companies were not allowed to sell cheaper drugs to help those in Africa. But you do make a point--simply removing patents would be a bad idea. The reason patents seem necessary is precisely because of the FDA and its regulations. You talk about massive amounts of money spent prior to the drug being produced--a huge chunk of that is jumping through the hoops of the FDA. The bigger issue is the cartelization of pharmaceutical companies via the FDA.

From an article by Jeffery Tucker:

"Examine 19th century chemical production. They tell the story of the French patent on coloring dyes granted to the La Fuchsine company, a patent that pretty well destroyed all development in France while the absence of patent in Germany, Switzerland, and Britain led to massive innovation and the beginnings of the modern industry. The US was very behind here due to its strong patents, and even in the first world war the U.S. had to import dyes from Germany in violation of the British blockade. This was how DuPont got its start."

 

You are correct ... With the exceptions that insurance companies pay for the generic drug ... and the co-pay for the insured is $3.10.
Believe what you want, but when inspecting pharmacies ... I see tons of the generic drugs, and maybe a 100 count bottle of the name brand (half full and within a month of the expiration date).
So that kind of just shoots your theory in the foot.

Also ... Anyone that thinks the FDA and Pharmaceutical Companies are friends, or partners in crime ... Has absolutely no experience dealing with the FDA.

Edit:
I have personally witnessed the FDA add four days to a scheduled audit of a Pharmaceutical Company simply because they didn't identify any FDA 483's (audit findings).
Eventually they intentionally misinterpreted the wording of a specific SOP in the company's written Quality Manual Standards … just so they could report a 483 finding.

 

The FDA is a cartelizing agent. Its expensive regulations keep the big corporations in power, which both increase prices and reduce competition. All you have to do is look at the profit margins to see who is really raking in the dough. The insurance companies are the middle man, the root of the problem is the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry. I don't understand why you bring in your own experience in the context of an online forum--they are simply not verifiable. I could easily say "I saw the ceo's of pharmaceutical companies get together with the head of the FDA to conspire."

What I look at is profit margins and regulations that favor certain companies or make production of certain goods more expensive. FDA regulations make production of drugs very expensive. To solve this FDA created problem? Create another regulation, that patent. This only further keeps drugs expensive, so the consumer is no better off, but the pharmaceutical companies are. Insurance companies are mandated to cover drugs, so they pay the higher costs and thus charge higher premiums--but their profit margins are very low compared to the pharmaceuticals.

You have to find the root of the problem. The biggest issue is high costs--why is that? You can't just look to premiums, because premiums are high for a reason. The premiums are not the root. Insurance companies are not where it all starts.

 

They are as verifiable to as any of the garbage you have typed ... and I personally know you are wrong ... so there is the difference, because I don't have to assume anything about what you say.

 

I already provided links showing that the pharmaceutical industry has incredibly high profit margins, whereas the insurance industry has relatively low profit margins. Exactly how is that not verifiable? Anecdotal evidence, on the other hand, is simply not valid. And that is all you provided in response, so in the bigger picture you have provided nothing.

 

If you refer back to my post in reply to your links ... I agreed that the pharmaceutical companies have a higher profit margin than the insurance companies.
So ... Are you just trying to argue?

 

I'm trying to debate...and anecdotal evidence is not a valid response (as basic logic tells us) nor is calling my argument garbage a valid response.

 

There is a big difference in assumptions based on logic and actual knowledge ... One attempts to understand where the other actually knows.
Your anecdotal evidence in no different than anyone else's ... And my experiences with the FDA, however limited they may be, give me a better understanding.
The fact that you are agenda driven when nothing more than an article written by other people to support your assumptions, and no personal experience, certainly doesn't make your opinions any stronger.

And furthermore, you didn't come with any intention of debate ... just spouting agenda driven diatribe.
I can dismiss what you say just as easy ... and can find a link that reshapes the world to boot ... http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

 

Logic is not anecdotal evidence. My argument is based on the solid evidence of the profit margins and economic reasoning. Your "knowledge" is purely anecdotal. I don't think you really understand what anecdotal evidence is. Even if I believe that your story is 100% true, it is still not valid on its own. It is akin to cherry picking data, using a sample size far too small (many other people in your profession may have had the complete opposite experiences. For all you know you are the odd one out). On top of that, even if the evidence you provided was valid, it is hardly an argument against anything I said.

I'm not just saying all this to block debate...I am simply pointing out the flaw in your invalid argument. From wikipedia:
"Anecdotal evidence is considered dubious support of a claim; it is accepted only in lieu of more solid evidence. This is true regardless of the veracity of individual claims."

Its also known as the "person-who" fallacy. Such as "I know a person who did this, therefore my argument is true." In this case, that person is you. Its simply fallacious reasoning. If you believe I have fallacious reasoning as well, by all means point it out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

 

You crack me up, and again ... I never argued with the fact you presented that Pharmaceutical Companies make a higher profit margin than Insurance Companies, just with your distorted take on the FDA.
Now if you want to attempt to prove any of that ... outside of your absurdly faulty logic ... then knock yourself out.

I fully understand what antidotal evidence is and surely don't need a stupid wiki-lesson from you ... speaks volumes to your standards.
Good luck in your endeavors, and get back in touch when you have any practical life experiences with the FDA, instead of talking out of your rear end and thinking your distorted logic means anything.

By the way ... No one is forcing you to buy pharmaceuticals from anybody ... and if you don't like them, then don't buy them.
If you want to purchase the generic brand versus the name brand ... the insurance company is not going to argue with you ... and all you have to do is ask.
That is not antidotal evidence ... Just ask your pharmacist ... if they won't substitute the drugs, call your doctor and tell them you want the generic drug ... simple as that.